Written and recorded by Colin Beaumont, Barrister
Hello and welcome to this presentation on behalf all data law. My name is calling Beaumont I waas for many years a solicitor in private practice in the Thames Valley area, but I'm now happily retired. No, this one hour webinar presentation is part one of two. These two parts cover the common offenses that you're likely to deal with when advising clients at the police station stage. Obviously also, when advising clients in court these two webinars, I think it will be extremely useful for anyone advising clients at the police station stage and in particular, of course, for anyone about to embark on taking the written examination aspect off the police accreditation course or scheme. So that's Len. Look at the first of the series of common offenses that we're dealing with in this particular webinar, and it is that effect. So let's remind ourselves that theft requires both the actors Reyes the doing of the act on also the appropriate men's rare or guilty mind. There must be dishonesty. Remember that theft is the dishonest appropriation, a property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. So what do we mean by it's on the state Well, I can tell you all my working life the test I've be I've used for dishonesty was that contained in the case off. Gosh, however, we had a Supreme Court decision 2000 and 16 Ivy and Genting casinos, trading as Crock fits, in which the Supreme Court looked at the test for dishonesty in the case of gosh and found it to be one team. They said the test for dishonesty is that set out by law. Nickel was in the Royal Brunei Airlines case on also by Lord Hoffman. In the case of Barlow Clough's the test Is this Firstly, ascertain what backs were in the mind or the defendant at the time, in the words find out factually what he or she knew on what he or she did on. Then apply the test off the reasonably honest person to the acts of the defendant. In other words, it is both a subjective on objective test, but it's only subjective in the sense or ascertaining what the defendant did and what the defendant thought about what he or she was doing. Having ascertained that you simply then apply the objective test of the reasonably honest person at to the axe. That without the important point to bearing money in terms of dishonesty, is that in the current test set out in the case of Ivy, there is no necessity for the defendant himself. Toe have appreciated that what he was doing. Waas the Sony's. That is not the subjective element of the test. If, of course, what he was doing was dishonest according to the standards or reasonably on his people. Then he falls to be convicted whether or no he himself believed that what he was doing. Waas dishonest. I hope that makes sense. It's an objective test on his behavior is to be viewed by the objective yardstick. Now it may be that there is no guilty mind in the sense all he was so drunk or he was high on drugs at whereby he wasn't aware off what he was doing at all. Gosh, may not even have Bean aware of the actors. Reyes may not even have beena wear off walking into the shop, let alone walking out of the shop without having paid for the relevant items. So please at the East Asian always look at the custody record. Find out the state of decline upon arrest. He may have Bean very drunk. He may have bean high on drugs. Who knows? The offensive theft may not be made out because, of course, it requires the actress raise, and it requires some element of a guilty mind. Left at court is triable either way, and it carries seven years on indictment. Watch out for their by way of shoplifting, where the value is £200 or less. In these circumstances, it's quite weird in the sense, or he can still elect trial by jury. But the Magistrates have no authority to decline jurisdiction. Looking at the next small need, not only must there be dishonesty, but there must be on appropriation. Well, what does that mean? Well, essentially, it means assuming one or more of the rights of the owner. A mere Boeing is not a theft, but it may become a Seth if there is a later appropriation. But I put there the suspect Mabo on item on, Then give it away to someone else. Well, you can't give it away to someone else if it doesn't belong to you. And at that stage, it is said that the suspect has appropriated the rights of the owner. There is an appropriation. A suspect defendant may appropriate an item from the shelf of a supermarket, as I put there, taking it off the shelf and hiding it inside your jacket will do. At that point, there is a dishonest appropriation or property belonging to another, presumably with the intention to permanently deprive. That latter part, of course, could be inferred by the court from the surrounding circumstances. Now he may have a change of heart and put the item back. I just want you to appreciate that in law that would be mitigation. Putting the item back is mitigation. The dishonest appropriation has already taken place at the point when he hides the item inside his jacket. It's night. Three. Property property includes money, other property, real or personal, or something that we lawyers call a shows in action. A shows. Inaction is an intangible item, suggest the contents of the bank account. Presenting a cheque on a complainant's bank account may well amount perfect, whether his money in the account or an agreed overdraft such that money can be taken out, of course, where the account is over ruled then there is no shows in action to be step because, of course, there is no authority to lawfully take money from the account where an account is overdrawn on. There is no agreed overdraft. Apparently, electricity is not capable of being stolen, which is why, under the theft act, we have a specific offence off abstraction. Electricity gash. However, gas that may be stated SciFi the competent must belong to another possession. Working for whole or having a proprietary right or interest in the property. One. Conceal one's own property if another has a propriety interest in it. For example, taking your car to the gala. Large repairs being done. And then, of course, you go to the gallon large, and you furtively take the car away at not having paid for the repairs that have bean done. You have effectively committed the act of theft because the garage own, of course, has a propriety right in that particular item, the vehicle, unless and until the bill for the repairs has bean settled, it may be difficult for the crown to prove who the exact owner of the property is. Remember. The property must belong to another, and sometimes the charges framed at belonging to a person or persons unknown contrast the above with abandoned property. It may be that this property on old bicycle has bean truly abandoned. No one wants to own it any longer. Of course, it is for the defense to establish a Sfar as the defendant was concerned that he or she considered that this property waas truly abandoned on. As with all these things, everything depend upon the facts of the individual case property in a dustbin property on account. So Kipp has this property being abandoned at what is a lawyer and I don't think it has bean abandoned. I think property has been transferred to the local council who go down, have ownership of the items in the bin or ownership at the items on the council tip patrol, putting petrol in your car and then, of course, driving off. Not having paid for it Now that's an offensive, what we call making off without having paid knowing that payment on the spot Waas required, sometimes referred to as Bill King. Now the reason is no. That is because there has bean no dishonest appropriation in the sense all at the garage gives you consent to put the petrol into your tank. You have therefore not stolen the petrol at that state. Huge. And there has bean no dishonest appropriation of the petrol. However, if you then decide that you're going to make off without having paid for the petrol, then that is a specific events under the theft act. Sir, please don't be forgetful. Do remember that to pay for your patrol that when you filled your tank, of course, genuine forgetfulness on your part that might afford a defense. There must be some element of dishonesty in making off without pay. There must be an intention to permanently deprive the other off the property. This intention that must be at the same time as the appropriation. As I said earlier, a boring that may well later become a theft on the fax. If someone takes money from their employer, that is theft at those particular notes on those particular coins. This is true even if the suspect client defendant has an intention to return different notes on different coins later, the shoplifter who says that he intends to return the item when if he's gone past the tills out of the shop. And then, of course, he is called by the store detective. I think the court could reasonably infer that he didn't intend to pay for the items. Sometimes, you know, influences have to be draw on form a person's actions. But it is for the crown to prove on the active death in the that there waas a dishonest appropriation off property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. And in order to get a conviction caused, all of the elements of the offensive bed must be established. Although it's fair to say that the part of the elements may be inferred and often are in for heard from the actions off the particular defendant. What we can't get inside his or her particular head. But we can infer certain things from the way in which he or she acted well. I hope that's help at immolation defect. All I would say is, whatever offense you're dealing with, try and use some simple words and explain concepts in a simple way. There's no point in talking to a client at the police station and telling him or her that that is the dishonest appropriation of property blah, blah, blah because, quite frankly, he probably won't have a clue what you're talking about. Let's now look at the common offence, taking a motor vehicle without consent. Now course taking a motor vehicle without consent, sometimes referred to as talking, sometimes referred to as Tedy a taking and driving away? No, of course. It would be theft if there was an intention to permanently deprive here the owner of the vehicle. But of course, there often isn't an intent to permanently deprive he the owner of the vehicle. It's joyriding. It's taking a vehicle with a view to later abandonment. As I put down Slide seven, the crucial part of the events. The suspect does not have the consent of the owner, the suspect that defendant does not have any lawful authority and to take the vehicle in question. And, of course, it's an offence if you take it for your own use all for the use of another. It's also events. If the person doing the taking on the second occasion no, was that it has been taken by someone else without consent. Gosh, a vehicle may be taken initially on, then they may well be several further takings for thereafter all members bats of a particular group of having access to that particular vehicle in terms of passengers. Of course, the event is not limited to the action taking. The offense also incorporates allowing to be carried in a motor vehicle taken without consent. As I put them on slide eight passengers. I was guilty as the original owner if they know that the vehicle has bean taken without consent, but they must allow themselves to be carried in it, so there must be some movement of the vehicle sitting in the vehicle. Stationary vehicle would not be enough it Emily used to allowing to be carried. Nor would it be enough in relation to the taking of a motor vehicle. There must be some movement if you find out during the course of the journey that the vehicle has been taken without consent and you didn't know it when you got into it and you're a passenger. The law says you must do your your best to extricate yourself from the situation you find yourself in. So asking the driver to stop in order to let you get out would seem to me to be a jolly good idea. A slide. Nine. A conveyance. Most of the time, it's going to be an amount of car. Occasionally it's a bus. Sometimes it's a lorry, but most of the time is motorcars, but it's much wider than car homes. It could be a train, never had one. It could be an aircraft I've never had. One could be a boat. I have never had one. Pushing a car around a corner was a joke. Would not be sufficient in law to make out the events of them taking conveyance on motor vehicle without consent. If the only gives consent, of course, then no offence is committed and rather orderly on owner may give consent or be it albeit that consent was obtained by fraud. In other words, the owner allows you to take the vehicle because of who you say you are. At that stage, you have consent. Of course. It then transpires later that you were no who you said you were. Well, other offenses come to mind, but not at taking a motor vehicle without consent. Why? Because you had consent to take that vehicle As I put their consent, they know necessarily be vitiated by fraud. In other words, they may still be a valid consent, albeit fortunately or pain. It may be that the client have had the consent to take the vehicle on, then decided to go on a frolic of his own. The events have taken the motor people without consent at may well apply in instances where he or she has driven the vehicle. Outside of the agreed limitation, this is the client who is allowed to use the van for local deliveries. Hoodie son leans to embark upon a journey from Slough to Newcastle, but I don't think the owner of the vehicle would have permitted the use of that particular vehicle had he or she know that there was about to be a journey from Slough to Newcastle. And it might come as a shock to the client that in that state, each he or she may well in law taken the motor vehicle without consent. Now there is a crucial defense in relation to take in a motor vehicle without consent, and sometimes a police officers have difficulty in getting their heads surrounded on the defensive slips that the suspect, the client, believes that the owner would have consented had he or she known about the circumstances of the taking. It might be that your plan has taken his father's car without his father's consent. But your client may say to you, Yes, but I'm insured to drive my father's car, and I've driven my father's car on many previous occasions. I therefore believed that my father I would have agreed to the taking of the vehicle on this occasion had he known about the circumstances of it, the officer may say, Ah, yes, but I've got a statement from his father and his father didn't agree the taking off it, but with the greatest of respect to the police officer. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not your client believed that his father would have consented had he known about the circumstances of the taking. We know in reality Officer that his father didn't consent. That's why you got the statement. That's why my client has been arrested. That's why he's here at the peace station. What he's saying to you, an interview officer, is that he believed that his father would have consented. How do you know? At the circumstances at the taking. Of course, it's important to examine the facts when the client is telling you these things. Have you driven the vehicle before? Are you insured to drive? What led you to believe you that the owner would have consented had he known at the circumstances of the taking? The kind, of course may be wrong, but so long as this a genuinely held belief, he may well be given the benefit of the doubt. If the matter goes to trial. A slide cape that the suspect defended must know that the vehicle has bean taken without consent. Of course, this is knowledge. This is different from handling stolen goods where the test is knowledge or belief. Belief, of course, is the state of mind of the person who says, Well, I don't know for sure for sure that these goods are stolen goods, but there can be little other explanation in that that they are stolen at bay in mind. The circumstances of mine acquisition of them on bearing in mind all of the circumstances and all of the facts within my knowledge, that is, belief on board. It's lower, isn't it than knowledge. Taking a motor vehicle without consent. You have to know that the vehicle has bean taken without consent, particularly true of a passenger. A passenger is only guilty if he knows during the actual carriage of the vehicle in the vehicle that is being taken without consent. As I said earlier, if knowledge comes to the mind of the passenger during the actual carriage, then he or she that must try to leave that vehicle at the earliest possible safe at convenience. The events are whether you're the driver or whether you're the passenger. Summary. Only it doesn't carry points. But there is a discretion on the part of the court to disqualify a boat that taker of vehicle and that passengers as well. Let's turn now to another common events robbery section. Eight of the fact that this is what we call indicted will only if you're dealing with an adult. It can only be heard on an indictment at the Cranko. It's different in the youth court if you're dealing with someone age 17 down to 10 that because the youth call, unlike the adult court, has the jurisdiction to hear Indyk OBL only events is robbery is different to theft. Because force is used, all the victim is put in fear or force being used this force or fear that must take place before or at the same time as the steaming. The offense is essentially affect whilst violence or the threat of violence is used. If there is no theft, then of course there can be no if someone steals an item on, then uses force or the threats of force thereafter in order to escape. This is no of operating. The crucial thing about a robbery is that it's a there. But of course, force is used in order to obtain the item. All the threat of force. Here's a simple example. Hand over your mobile phone or it'll be the worst for you. Now, if that isn't a threat and I'm not quite sure what he's, of course, it would be a stronger case that the crown would it not it, the defendant suspect were to say, Hand over your mobile phone If you don't want to be nice, that clearly is a robbery that's like 12. The men's rare. The guilty mind in relation to robbery contains the same elements or elements off the men's rare affect. There must be dishonesty, but often will be in a robbery on. There must be an intention to permanently deploying. When I would have thought we can infer for that from the fax of the surrounding circumstances of the taking on the force that were used in the taking or the threats of force that were used in the taking. There must be an intention to use violence or, at the very least, recklessness as to the use of violence. Recklessness, of course, being the state of mind of a person who gives no thought to the risk or recognizing that a risk they will be in existence nevertheless decides to ignore that particular risk. Either one of those two states of mine will amount to recklessness. I think intention speaks for itself. A man intends the normal consequences for his actions. It won't be a defense, will it? If the current says to you Well, I didn't intend him to fear violence. Well, I think we can say from your actions you were extremely reckless in relation to the threats off violence aside, 13 The center. The council have issued guidelines in relation to appropriate sentences, so please Peace. Peace do go on to the sentencing council website on Have a read of the current guidelines. Gosh, where weapons. They used the starting point on a robbery and may well be as high as four years and where serious injuries caused and then the starting point starting point. That may well be eight years. No two cases of the same and regard must be had to individual features. Please please please also have regard to the guidelines published by the Sentencing Council and available on the Sentencing Council website on overarching principles. The sentencing of Children and young people. Definitive guideline. That guideline was published Our first stop, June 2000 and 17 1st of June 2017. Please visit the Sentencing Council website and download these various guidelines. There were a number of them relevant to you. When you advising kinds, download them, keep them on your phones, tablets, whatever. Okay, we're moving away from Barbary now into burglary. Section nine of the Best Act 1968 and I'm on slide. 14. A burglary occurs if someone enters a building as a trespasser, in other words, has no lawful authority to be in that building or in that particular part of the building. And of course, if they're entering that building or part of a building with an intention to steal or with an intention to cause criminal damage or with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, then Salama's the crown can establish. They had that intent at the point of entering the building. It matters not that they do not succeed in theft or criminal damage or grievous bodily harm. Gosh, a person made enter pregnancies with the intention to steal items. If there's anything of value worth stealing it, maybe there's nothing of value worth stealing Onda. The burger leaves Not having taken anything, the full act of burglary is made out because he entered as a trespasser with intent history. Oh, having entered the building as a trespasser, he does indeed steal items from the property, all course criminal gammy to the property, all grievous bodily harm. Whatever his intention, Waas on first injury burglary is what we call an either way offence. It can be dealt with by the magistrate. It can be dealt with at The Chronicle unless, unless the particular charge alleges a grievous bodily harm, because Of course, grievous bodily harm is purely indicted ble and makes the burglary a purely indicted every events as well. It's also, well, it got late. If if, if someone in the dwelling was subjected to violence, it also becomes indicted only if it's what we call three strikes you're third or subsequent dwelling house burglary. And, of course, it's indictable only because such offenses carry a mandatory minimum custodial sentence on indictment of three years. Please. If you at the police station stays dealing with someone on burglary, do your best to find out what previous convictions, if any they may have. It's important for you to know that whether or not they are three strikes, that's like a dean. As I've said there, the offence carries six months in the registry to call 14 years on indictment. If it's a dwelling house burger 10 years on indictment, where it's burglary of a long way, the person must Andrew building or part of a building as a trespasser burglary, and that that is no limited to houses. If you look at the fact that it could be a ship, he could be a vehicle, even if even if these items. Lee. These faces have no one in them at the time, but they are inhabited normally. The mere fact that the occupant has left doesn't mean calls that it's no inhabited by they might be away on holiday if it's no inhabited, then there's an argument but say that no burglary has taken place. A person may stray into an area of a shop where he or she is no in type to be well, if they start taking items from that area where they're not entitled to be think burglary. They have entered that particular area as a trespasser. Why? Because they're not entitled to be in that particular store room at the back of the shop. Entry needs to be effective, but any part of the body will do so. Putting your hand, presumably through the window amounts to a burglary. If, of course, you have the relevant men's rare, you're intending to steal items, course criminal damage or inflict. We respond me home at what out? For something called the doctrine of recent possession, your client might be found in possession of items recently stolen in a burglary. The doctrine of league doctrine of recent possession is a legal presumption that assists the crown on the presumption is that Italy or she is in very recent possession of items stolen in a burglary, that they indeed were the burger. Of course, it's only a legal presumption and may be displaced by other evidence that your client may say to you Well, I chanced upon these items and I found them in the street. I found the in the bushes. I picked them up at with a view to taking them to the police station. Yeah, good luck with that one. Ah, watch out the Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We know don't way that that, of course, this is a special a special Wallinger that's given to the suspect in the interview on adverse inferences at maybe born if he or she at fails to fails to mention at the interview stage and give an account for objects, substances or marks that were found upon him upon arrest. And of course, the objects that were found upon him upon arrest may well amount to items taken in the burglar. Also, give some thought to Section 37 of the same act. Of course, this is the suspect in the injury now being kept being asked to account for his presence at all near the scene of the crime upon arrest. And, of course, he may well be found hiding in the bushes, trying to avoid detection by the peace dogs having just Burkle or attempt to gurgle. And 42 case you having you. So do watch out for that check on the custody record, please. What did you she have upon them upon arrest on and where were they arrested The next common effect. Common events I want to deal with. I'm slide 17. Handling stolen goods. This is an either way events and carries 14 years on indictment. Remember, their carries nearly seven years on indictment, but you'll be amazed how many clients are almost happy to have a handling charge. But rather than that there a person handled stolen goods, if otherwise, than in the course of stealing lives goods knowing or believing them to be stolen, he dishonestly receives the goods or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention. Slide 18 or dishonestly removes the goods or disposes of the goods or realizes the goods by or for the benefit of another person. Or if he arranges, did you say so? You can see you, can't you that there were a number of different ways in which a person may handle seven girls Goods includes money and every other description of property, except that the goods must actually have been stolen. Remember the offenses handling stolen goods? A. May have been leaf in them. Being stolen is not enough. The 10th stolen goods also includes the proceeds of selling goods. Receiving means taking possession or control the goods, whether jointly or exclusively assisting in their retention, conceding them or making it more difficult to identify them. An entirely innocent purchaser of the goods is not to be convicted. Contrast the above with the purchaser, who must believe that the goods are stolen. Belief, as I said earlier, is something less than knowledge. You may know that the goods that your purchasing are stepping goods you may believe, let their stabler bearing in mind the circumstances of the acquisition, knowledge or belief at the time of handling is required in order to secure a conviction. Belief is the state of mind of the person who says, Well, I don't know for sure War that these goods air stumbling. But look what's being offered to me. Look at the price I'm being asked to pay. Look at the circumstances in which this offer is taking place. We're in a pub late at night. I can't say for sure for sure or that these items were stolen and I don't know that, but I believe that didn't still in. There can be little other explanation bearing in mind all of the circumstances to which and the knowledge to which I'm privy. And, of course, that's how people get convicted. The court infers that they had a belief that the goods in question were stolen and they were indeed handling stepping goods. Here's a tip. If ever a client offers to give you something or to sell you something, I think it's probably wise to politely decline. You have no I hear that where those particular goods came. 20 recent possession recent possession of the items. As I said earlier, if a person is in possession off recently stolen property, all property taken in a burglary, then of course, there is this presumption that they are indeed the thief along the bed. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the court may well draw certain inferences that they are indeed the thief or the handlers must be dishonest receiving the goods in order to take them to the police. That will not be a crime under the that night Section 27. Evidence of previous convictions that you were indeed ah, handler or a thief are visible convictions for theft or handling. Stolen goods within 12 months of the charge are admissible as part of the crown's case to say that you are indeed a handler at stepping growths. Of course, you could say this is bad character, couldn't you? But it spits some much older than the bad character provision. Of course, this is contained in the Theft Act 1968 and it's being the case for many, many, many years that the crown have Bean entitled to juice previous convictions at the back door handling as part of their case at, to show that, yes, you are a handler of seven goods. Okay, let's look at another another common offense and know how. And this time it's common. Assault concrete to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 will slide on 21. A. Salt covers a very wide spectrum. You have common assault at one end of the spectrum along the way up to grievous bodily harm with intent on at the lettering. Grievous bodily harm calls his sexually key of the offenses against the Persons Act 18 61 Harm within hint Just below at GBH is section 20 of the same act. This is the same harm Revis bodily harm or really serious bodily harm, but without the intent, this offense that might be caused recklessly below this is Section 47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a gay on offense that might be caused intentionally or recklessly below. This is common assault victim, usually unharmed. All received only minimal injuries. So what is an assault on a sold is the apprehension of immediate on normal violence. So if someone comes up here in the street with a clenched fist, I think it's fair to say that you might fear the young, apprehend the immediate use other unlawful violence against you At that time. The perpetrator with the claims fish would you believe, has committed an offence of assault. A slight When do battery, of course, is the application about new unlawful force to another. But both assault and battery are covered by the term assault, and in practice, you're not really going to come across in the publicity piece station unless there has bean a battery as well as an assault. And it may be that the injuries amount to actual bodily harm. That doesn't stop the prosecution's you were at charging common assault. Remember that for common is sold. There need not be any injuries at all. All the injuries might simply be of a minor nature. It is important, isn't it, that there need not be any violence at all, merely the apprehension of it and the apprehension of violence that may be caused by words alone. And, of course, the suspect does not have to intend at this common assault at recklessness. I do. But the sub test for recklessness is subjective. The defendant must realize the risk, but I know that he or she will realize the risk from their actions. That's like 23 continuing common assault. The actors race, of course, of the battery element of common is sold is the unlawful infliction off violence battery requires a physical contact with victim. The victim need no apprehend that they're about to be the subject of unlawful violence. It may be that their punched in the back well, of course, that's going to be a common assault. The battery must be a positive act. Accidents, of course, might or formal events. But if you apply and he's saying that the whole thing was pure accident, that do please carefully examine the facts because it maybe there's a thin dividing line between a reckless act and an act that was a pure accident, creating an old BIA's danger and exposing another person to it. Well, that's going to be a reckless act, isn't it? What if, for example, a police officer is set to the client, but I'm about to search your pocket? Do you have any sharps or needles within it? If the client said no, I don't have anything of that nature in my pocket. And then, of course, the officer does the search of the pocket and puts herself or himself on an eagle that clearly is a circumstance where your client has created and obvious danger and exposed another person to it that would certainly you make out a common assault charge. I think I would mention this at the men's rare for battery is intention. All recklessness that's in relation, of course, to common assault. There is the common law defense of self events, which will come across when you're seeing clients at the police station that there's also a defense more, more rarely, in my experience, up forward under Section 31 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 at reasonable force in the prevention of Crime on always unreasonable belief in the amount of force to be used will provide a defence that's important, isn't it? Because it may be that even though your client is arguing self events that he or she has gone slightly over the top, as I put them on, slide 24 on allowance must be made for the heat of the moment. If the forces disproportion Earth's, I think the good way viewing it is well, yes, okay, perhaps in the heat of the moment, the client did a little more than he or she should have done, and it was disproportionate in terms of defending themselves. But if, in all the circumstances, it was reasonable to use that particular piece of disproportionate force in the heat of the moment. I think it's something to be considered by way, perhaps, of drafting a written statement and reading it out during the interview. Of course, that worthy client has gone well over the top and used ropes Lee. It's a disproportion fourths that that will rule you out of the defense of self defense. And if you, even if you've gone over the top and used disproportionate force, it's always going to be a tricky one as to whether or not the call will accept that the use of this proportion of falls on that occasion was reasonable in or the circumstances based upon the threat that you found. Imagine you're just war here on the street, minding your own business or you outside a nightclub later tonight and someone approaches you with a knife. Well, I would have thought your thinking processes yeah, are probably not going to be working completely. 100% in relation to ah ha now was calculate. I must calculate to a nicety the degree of force that I'm going to be a permitted in law used in defending myself that from this person who's coming at me with a knife, Eaton will agree. Life doesn't really work that way. Your seat on both the more serious threat new face, the more I would say you're allowed to go over the top in defending yourself if in all the circumstances, that is a reasonable thing. T, I think, really, the law is aimed at those people who get the better who get the better that their assailant and still want to argue self defense, even though their assailant is on the floor on their kicking them violently in the ribs. I think at that stage, at most reasonable people wouldn't do that. They would consider leaving the scene. The law, of course, doesn't stop you from landing the first blow, and you'll often find that kinds of the police station in their instructions will have landed the first blow. I can tell you that I wish they hadn't. You always sound more convincing and courted. They had landed depends blow, but if someone comes at you with a clenched fist, or if someone comes at you and they look violent and they look antagonistic, and you think you're about to come in for a bit of a beating. You don't have to wait for the first blow to be landed. You could get in what we lawyers call the pre emptive strike. You must, of course, apprehend the immediate use of an unlawful violence against you. Now you should. And it's although difficult, isn't it? Because of what's going on, You should consider that temporizing stopping disengaging from the incident, retreating that these are all factors that for the court to consider. But just because you didn't tempo of eyes just because you didn't disengage just because you didn't retreat, that's not necessarily going to rule you out of self defense. The mere fact that you were the initial aggressor, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are ruled out off self events. But I can tell you this. If you were the initial Russia aggressor, it gets that much more difficult, does it? No, on a credibility basis for the court to accept that you were acting in separate events, you'll get an awful lot of this active police station course. It may be that the client was safe, but it's all called on the video. Well, if it's caught on the video, then of course it would be nice to see the video, would it? Not before the client starts laying down their version. Maybe it may be that they would choose to go no comment and leave. Their defenses were until after they've seen the contents of the video. That's like 26 The violence line. I believe in relation to this. That part, one of Part two of the common events, is the final slide human user called Self Events. In order to defend yourself, all defend another person. The legislation, by the way, is Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2000 and eight. Do please also why you're having a look at Section 76. Have a look at Section 76 this is the force that may be used as an occupier upon an intruder. But when you're defending yourself in your own home effectively, Section 76 a has been interpreted by the cause as allowing you to use disproportionate force if you're in your home so long as the court take the view that in ALS, the circumstances, the use off that disproportionate force that was not unreasonable. Consent is not necessarily a defense. We have a very famous case in which males indulge in acts or Sadio massacres, um, and assaulted one another, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm. Now the events, of course, was that these were consenting adults but called took a public policy view of what had happened and said, Know that you can't consent to a beach. It may well be that you can consent to common assault. Remember, we said that in relation to common assault, there need be no injuries or the injuries might be a very minor nature. I'm disciplined horse play in the street, and they will be lawful that where the victim consents a gay common ourselves. But both of you are consenting. Of course, of course. Don't rule out the possibility of other offenses coming to mind under the Public Order Act. At 1986 it's a very it's a very risky thing to do to start fighting with people in public injuries inflicted in sporting contests. Well, of course, they have to be sufficiently great you in order to be characterized as criminal. The Latin maxim Valenti non fit in jury er comes to mind. Of course, if you engage in sporting activities, you off the lead anti you volunteer toe a certain element of injury being caused. It's all part and parcel at the physical sport, like rugby, like ice hockey like soccer. But of course, if the injuries, if the injuries are way, way, way above and beyond that to which you would normally have consented as part of the game and then a criminal events that may well have good, I'm I'm want that. But representing some one of the police station, he had been involved in an ice hockey match. Gosh, the one of the opposing players had taken a stick, smashing him back with my client, who taken stick and smashed it over the head of one of the other players, causing a very serious some wound in the head. Grievous bodily harm requiring lots and lots of stitches. I don't think the other player was relent. I toe that sort of injury being calls in an ice hockey match. Over there you are. I do hope that's helped. It's important to read the the material, the written material that that goes along with these particular slides were also buried. Mind that this is mid part one off a tomb path Webinar in relation to these common offenses. So, really, all that remains is to thank you on behalf of data law for watching this particular webinar on for listening to me. And I hope for your company again, you're really a future in part to thank you.
01:00:46
Hello on. Welcome to this Webinar. On behalf of Data Law, my name is calling Beaumont. I'm retired now, but I waas for many years A solicitor in private practice in Thames Valley. This one hour webinar is part two of an examination of the common offenses of that you'll encounter when having to sit the written examination as part of your police station accreditation. The webinar will also be immensely useful for anyone advising suspects at the police station State huge and also that when advising clients at court now, this is part two that the common events is I have already done another webinar part one in which I did cover six of the common events is part two covers The remaining fun leave common offenses that are the subject off the examination. So let's just have a look Then at slide to the first of these common offenses for consideration is assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This is an offence country to section 47 at the offenses against the Person Act 18 61. It is an either way. Events carry a maximum of six months imprisonment in the magistrate called or five years on indictment It carries seven years on indictment if the offenses racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm has the same actors Reyes and men's rare as common assault with two additional elements. Firstly, it is assault occasioning and by occasioning we mean that injury has to be occasioned. As you know, with common assault, there need be no actual injury. But with this particular events, injury must be occasioned on it is the strict liability on element of the offence. In other words, it doesn't require any guilty money in the act alone is sufficient. If injury has bean occasioned in So far as the actives race is concerned, causation is required it the defendant must in some way have caused the injury. Of course, it might be that the injury and is a complete accident this might afford at the defendant. With the defense so occasioning there, the strict liability aspect of the offensive injury has in fact that being occasioned now actual bodily harm the harm must be more than merely transient or trifling. There must be some harm. It maybe I know a bruise. It may be a black eye as I put there an example of actual bodily harm might be cutting off someone's hair without consent. It can also cover psychiatric injury. But of course, expert evidence will be required by the court. If the crown's case is that the home was have a psychiatric nature. Evidence of fear, distress or panic are not enough to make out the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Other offenses, of course, under the Public Order Act, come to mind the same defenses apply as applied to common assault. In other words, if you're merely defending yourself or you're defending another person, then of course you may well have a defense, even though you have assaulted someone occasioning actual. But he home the defense that was run on in a very famous case in which a group of men aim private committed acts of Sadio massacres of upon one another that will not avail the client. I doubt if you ever come across it. But in that particular case it was almost a public policy decision where the court said that if you assault people occasioning them actual bodily harm, then even though they are fully consenting, because this is a sadomasochism that will not be a defense reasonable chastisement of a child money beer defense in relation to common assault. But it's not that defense in relation to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That didn't used to be the case. But times have changed. And at court, the prosecution makes Ito amend a charge of actual bodily harm to common assault. Come. The soldiers, you know, is a summary only offense. With a six month limitation period, the charge of actual bodily harm can be amended even though six months more than six months have elapsed so long as the A B H was charged within the six month period. Now, as we all now with the P station, many of these assaults occur within a domestic situation. So please, please do go on to the sentence in camps a website and have a look. Please at the sentencing guidelines. Overarching principles. Domestic abuse very recently published. The guideline applies equally in the youth court as it does in the adult court. It applies to all Avengers age 16 or over sentenced on or after 24th of May 2000 and 18 if the offense occurs within a domestic situation than a restraining order that might be a possibility at court at See Section five off the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Orders can still be made if acquitted. See Section five A of the act If it's necessary for a restraining order to made for someone's protection where admissions are made in consultation at the police station. Do please give some thought to advising the client to make a no comment interview on it may well be that the parties will become reconciled. And, of course, it might not be beneficial if the client has made full admissions. That's going to be extremely useful to the crown now, where there's a denier in consultation. Of course, you could consider advising your plane to answer or of the questions are putting forward. The denied in the interview all perhaps considered buys in the client to have a no comment interview on dime drafting a written statement setting out the terms or facts of the events which your plant could read out in the interview. Or you could read out on the client's Bihar. Always having mind please. If it is a domestic situation, the client attacking the character of the complainant and during the interview. Clearly, the client does attack the character of the complainant during the interview. This is one of the gateways for the crown to be able to get in the defendant's bad character. A trial under Section 101 off the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Obviously, every time he's different. But you just have to give some thought to whether or not your plant will explode during the interview. And if there's a danger that even though they haven't events, there's a lot to be said for advising a no comment interview on reading out a pre prepared depends statement. It's a great way of controlling at the interview Ondas. It were preventing the client from inadvertently allowing the crown to get you a bad character. Now, before I moved to fray. I just want to make one final point in relation to the men's rare at for the events of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Now the men's Raya is short off intent that doesn't need to be on intent. In order for a B H to be made out. Recklessness will do on recklessness is the state of mine at the person who effectively appreciates that a risk exists but still goes on to take that risk. Or a person could be reckless if they give no thought to the risk, and you'll find that many of these assaults are caused recklessly. There isn't necessarily any intent on the part of the client to actually calls on actual bodily harm, but so what? The crown don't need to prove intent. I think it is an important point to bear in mind that when you're dealing with ourselves, the only assault that actually requires intent is grievous bodily harm with intent. And that's contrary to section 18 of the offences against the Persons Act 18 61. Okay, well, let's look at another then of the common events is, and this time we're looking at afraid, which is Section three of the Public Order Act 1986 and I'm on Slide six. Now if you look at the Public Order Act, there are fine offenses relating to public disorder. Section One deals with by its gosh. You won't encounter that very often in the police station. It requires at least 10 people to be participating. Section two violent disorder requires at least three of vendors. Section three a. Frey could be committed by a person alone. Section four threatening behaviour can be committed alone section. Finally, disorderly conduct can be committed alone. Now don't get me wrong that there must be other people at the sea You But of course, it only requires one offender your client for a Section three a section fall or a Section five. We also have section for a intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress. A new offense which fall was between threatening behaviour and different afraid is in either way events. It carries six months imprisonment in the Magistrates called three years on indictment. So what is afraid all about? Well, under Section three, a person is guilty off a three if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another on, and his conduct is such as would have caused a person or reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. Where there are two or more people involved in this particular afraid, it is the conduct of them taken together, which is to be judged. No person of reasonable firmness need actually be or likely to be present at the scene itself. There are three elements of the actors raise have been afraid. First, me, the offender must use all threatened violence. Mere words are not enough to this. Use off threat, use or threat or violence must be towards another person. And thirdly, it is behavior, as would cause a person off reasonable firmness. President seen to fear for their safety. Of course, the whole rationale behind the offense or afraid is it. Effectively, It is a crime against other people who are at the scene. These are the people calls on being people who might who might fear for their own safety. An example of afraid would be setting a dog upon a policeman with instructions to bite. Another example might be driving a car at another vehicle, but not, of course, it. That other vehicle was empty on a freeway could be committed by one person, one offender alone if mawr than one. Then, of course, it is the conduct of them taken together and in order to establish whether or no on afraid has taken place, the violence used must be unlawful. Violence, self defense and other defenses are available. The point and often is forgotten by police officers on prosecutors. But that, of course you may. Well, he had vertically engage in behavior which might, on the face of it, seem like a gray. But of course, you're using violence in the protection of yourself or in the protection off others. And that, of course, would afford a defense to a charge of the frame. The vines must be directed at another person, not property. You can't as it were on having afraid, where you've directed your violence at an empty car. The person towards whom the violence is directed must be at the scene. So that's the second person, obviously one offender but a second person who must be there, the person to towards whom the violence is directed. If there is no other person at the scene, then the offense is not committed. Remember, this is a public order offence. The clue is in the word public. On what sort of violence is it? Well, it is. Violence sits. It sits that 1/3 party off reasonable firmness who may or may not be present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. Let me put some flesh on the bones of this because it's often misunderstood. Now let's assume that the third person at the scene, you waas Rambo now then, though, may not have feared for his personal safety, so warped it's not whether the third person at the scene, the member of the public vanloh, fears for his personal safety. That's not the test. The test is the mythical person of reasonable firmness. But, of course, Vam, Bow or someone else, some other member of the public must have bean at the scene. The point is that that person might not be the type of person is it were who would fear for their own personal safety. But if a mythical person, a reasonable firmness, would have feared for their safety at the scene than the offense is made out. As I said earlier, this section is designed to protect third parties, members of the public, bystanders, those people walking past rather than those involved in the actual violence. If the fight is confined to just the two participants and of no one else around, this is not afraid on a Frey could be committed in private as well as in public places. But of course, some third person must be there. So just to summarize, if you think about it, there must be at least three or more war people at the scene. Firstly, the person using or threatening unlawful violence. Secondly, the person to whom the violence or threat is directed. Thirdly, the person off, reasonable, firm nurse who need no actually be present, but someone needs to be present. The men's rare have been afraid is that the defendant must intend to use or threaten violence. All must be aware that his conduct may be violent or threatening violence. So it's something lower than an intent. Let's deal now with the third off the common offenses that being dealt with in this particular webinar. This time it's possession of an offensive weapon. Section one off the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 a bit tricky, but I hope this webinar will clarify the position. I know that police officers have difficulties in this particular area. Firstly, let's start in the very beginning. It is an offence to carry on offensive weapon in public unless on these are the statutory defences contained within the Section one has a lawful authority to carry that particular weapon all a reasonable excuse for so doing. An offensive weapon could be anything made or used as a weapon. Firearms are excluded as thes air covered in different legislation. The onus, of course, is upon the carrier of the weapon to show any lawful authority or reasonable excuse as a static pre defense, the person must know that they have the weapon upon them. On the burger is upon the prosecution to prove the knowledge of the fact that they had this particular weapon with them at the time. Forgetfulness will no help if they have it, and they knew at one state huge that they had it. But they now have forgotten that they've got it. Possession does not come or go with one's memory. The offense could only occur in a public place. This is a question of fact for the cooled. If the issue is flagged up by the defense once a not guilty plea has been entered, the prosecution must establish that this occurred within a public place. Public place, as you know, is defined as anywhere that the public have access to weather on payment of a fee well, otherwise possession off offensive weapons of course, it's important to appreciate whether all not that this is taking place in a public place or a private place. A landing on a block of flats, No barriers to progress. Public place. Why? Because the public generally had access to this block of flats if they wanted it. A landing on a block of flats, entry by key or intercom? Not a public place. Why? Because the general public did not have access to this block of flats entry being restricted to those people having a key. All those people being allowed access at via the intercom? No, there are three different types or categories of offensive weapons. Firstly, weapons that are specifically made to cause injury. Butterfly knives, flick knives, race fly, rice, flails, truncheons. These are what we call offensive, per se per se off itself. It has been made to cause injury, I'm afraid, much as you might want to, you cannot carry around in a public place a butterfly knife, a flick knife, a rice flair or even a truncheon. Of course, if you're a police officer, then you're permitted to carry a truncheon because, of course, you have lawful authority. So to do then the items adapted to cause injury, a bottle that's been smashed and now has a jagged age. Of course, if it's a beer bottle, it's just a beer bottle. But as soon as it smashed and has a jagged edge and you start as it were approaching someone with it, this then becomes an item adapted to cause injury. The third item, or the third category, are simply items that you are allowed to carry around with you. But of course, the crown must show that you have the item with the intention off causing injury to someone. A baseball bat might be an example of that category. A slight 16 we call weapons made to cause injury. Offensive weapons per se. See the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Offensive Weapons order 1980 years. That order doesn't contain an exhaustive list on but all of the weapons listed in that order offensive person. So if it's on that list, you cannot carry it around with you in public. Absent a lawful authority or reasonable excuse, mere possession of an offensive weapon per se is sufficient to make out the case. In other words, the prosecution don't need to prove any intention with offensive weapons per se, their cases made out. If they can put you in a public place with that particular weapon on you, they merely need to prove possession. Of course, it is possession of an offensive weapon without a lawful authority or a reasonable excuse on, I would have thought most of the time your client is going to be struggling to come up with some lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Have a a set of rice flails upon him, or a butterfly ni or a flick knife, or any one of the myriad add on items that are offensive person side 17. Some weapons are no offensive per se, but may be adapted to cause injury. A bottle, which is broken and therefore has a jagged edge would be a classic example that this again, if you've got that type of item with you, the prosecution don't need to prove that you have the item with you. With the intention of causing injury, the prosecution merely have to prove simple possession. Someone else may have done their adapt team. Someone else may have smash the beer bottle and handed it to you clients sometimes have problems grasping this particular concept that as soon as you have in your possession on item which has bean adapted the prosecution do not need to prove that you had it on you with intention to cause injury. It's almost as if we can infer that you had it on you with an intention to cause injury because of your behaviour with that particular broken bottle. Of course, it would be a defense if you had a lawful authority or a reasonable excuse toe have that particular item with you. It might be that you're on your own and you're surrounded by a group of 10 people who want to do you serious harm it. Maybe you've got that item on you as it were as the only means of defending yourself from death or serious bodily injury. That might be a defense that might be a reasonable excuse for having that bottle with a jagged edge on you. The third category of weapon is an item being tended to be used to cause injury. These are items that you're allowed toe have on you in a public place, but you're no allowed toe. Have them on you if your intention with them is to cause injury to other people, a baseball bat might be a classic example. There's nothing long ordinarily with having a baseball bat on you. Why you might be off to the park to play a game off baseball. But of course, if it's late at night and you're outside and night club and your bare chested and you're a bit drunk on your waving a baseball back in the air, shouting at people, come outside. If you think you're hard enough, I give these would be too difficult for a court to infer that you had that baseball back with you on that occasion in order to cause others some injury. Yeah, everything depends upon the facts. And I tell you this at the police station stage, viewing the CC TV footage might be very useful before your client decides to say anything in your view. Now, because you're allowed to carry a baseball bat around with you, the prosecution must prove that you had it with intention to cause injury intention to cause injury. Recklessness will not do. They must show an intense. I have no doubt the intent could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, These intense often are inferred. A conditional intent would do carrying it around in case of meeting a particular person who know he's going to do you some harm that we do. You can't carry around on offensive weapon as it were intending it to be used. If you meet a particular person who you know might want to do you some home picking up a snooker cue with the intention of causing injury, the offense is made out picking up the cue to play snooker. That is the reason for the possession. Then hitting someone with it may well amount to an assault. But it is no possession of an offensive weapon because, of course, you didn't possess it with the intention or call was in injury to a passage, which of course must be made out in order for you to be guilty off a possession with intent in relation to the snoop liqueur. I say 10 recklessness is recklessness is insufficient. Bakhram must show an intent that's like 19 private security guards have no right to carry around offensive weapons. Police officers do, of course, police officers carry truncheons. Police officers carry mace they carry all sorts of things, which the law allows them to do in order to exercise or perform at their normal beauties. As I put there on slide, 19 police officers as well as soldiers are given lawful authority to carry things around, which are offensive weapons per se but not the general public. Well, I say, not the general public. Of course, even if you're a member of the general public, the crown merely have to show that you had the item on you. The duty, then, is upon you to show lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It's gonna be jolly difficult to show lawful authority or reasonable excuse if it's an offensive weapon per set like, for example, a flick knife. If you are going to argue lawful authority or reasonable excuse, of course, because the duty is placed upon you as the defense, you have to raise that on. Establish evidentially that defense on a balance of probabilities, the civil standard or proof, the carpet fitter who has a Stanley knife or a fisherman who has a knife. These people may be arguing a reasonable excuse about having the item on them, namely in the course of their work. I'm sure your average carpet bitter does carry a Stanley knife around with him or her. It's a bite toe full of being a carpet fitter, and I would have thought it would be a rather strange police officer who wanted to arrest the person going into a house with a rolled up carpet over his shoulder because he was simply in possession of a Stanley knife. Of course, it might be quite different if that carpet fitter has that standing I've in his pocket at late at night, two o'clock in the morning, perhaps when he is very drunk on outside a nightclub. Possession on those facts might well be problematic. I doubt he fits carpets at 2 a.m. In the morning. Now, if you face an imminent threat of being attacked, you know that there are people as it were out to get you and they're out to get you now. You just might have a reasonable excuse for having an item on you for self defense. But that is a very, very, very tricky defense not to get home lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Remember the only defense If the item is offensive But I say what you can't do. Courses carry around an offensive weapon on the off chance that it might be useful, Do you if you're going to be ever attacked? That might seem like a good idea to some clients, but I can tell you now is a lawyer, and it's not a good idea. In practice on leaves, use leaves you yourself open onto a suggestion or virtuality of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority. Always an excuse. There you are. I hope that helped. I'm just going to summarize it. If I'm a very briefly by saying that if the offensive weapons offensive per se or its bean made or adapted to cause injury, the prosecution don't have to show that you had it on you with intent to call someone injury. They merely have to show that you were in possession off. The only stent falls upon you to show some sort of lawful authority or reasonable excuse toe happy item on you. This is not so in the third category of items that you are allowed to have on you like a baseball back where in order for the charge to be made out, the crown must established that you had it with intent to cause others injured. I hope that's clear. It's certainly a live issue when you're advising clients aka P Station Strange. Okay, let's turn now to criminal damage away something again, which is a quite prevalent on upon which you would have to advise fairly frequently for no damn e sexual. One of the Criminal Damage Act 1974. This essentially isn't either way of bent. If the damage is less than £5000 it becomes summary only on a determination by the court. You can shop hunch the events of criminal damage outside of the sick man, period, because it is always and either way, events to begin with. And it remains either way, unless and until the magistrate call determines that because of its value I less than £5000 it is summary only. And of course, if it is summary, only as many criminal damages are because the value is less than £5000 it becomes summary. Only with no right to reelect got my do. The defense within the section is one of lawful excuse criminal damage without effectively a lawful excuse to commit that damn the property must belong to another. The men's rare. The guilty nine is intention to damage or recklessness as to whether or not that damage was caused. We looked at recklessness before. Recklessness, of course, is the state of mind of the person who either gives no thought to their being a risk on perceiving that a risk exists, he or she. Nevertheless, that goes on to take the risk. That is the the act of a records person. It's always a question of fact as to whether or not something has bean damaged some examples. There are things that don't ordinarily spring to mind is being criminal damage. The soaking of a blanket flooding of the floor of a piece cell held to be criminal damage. Unauthorized deletion of a program from a computer. Criminal damage jamming an email system by overloading it with spam messages. Criminal damage. Criminal damage may be caused to land. Remember, from part one, we look at theft in part one. It is not possible to steal land. Although it is possible to steal items from the land, you can cause criminal damage to living creatures you can criminally Gammage a cat. You can criminally damage a dog. You cannot criminally damage a human being. And apparently a criminal damage is no made out by picking wild mushrooms. But I must confess, I would have thought it would have been made out. It is not possible to cause criminal damage to property wholly owned by yourself. You'll come across this at the police station stage where he and let's be frank. It's usually he in a fit of temper that not only commits an act of violence but starts smashing up the furniture or even smashing up the property as well. You have to give some thought as to who owns this particular property. If it's owned solely by the client, of course, then no active criminal damage is made. If, of course, it's owned by the other party or if it's jointly owned or if it's owned by the camp. So then, of course, of the active criminal damage is many reckless nurse is a subjective test. Was the defendant aware of the risk dress? Maybe events that damaging property to protect life or limb, or damaging the property to protect other property, not guilty if the defendant believed that the person owning the property would have consented to the damage. Criminal damage on indictment carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. Criminal damage in Magistrates called carries a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment. Alison don't get confused about Arsen. Arsen is merely criminal. Damage by fire on criminal damage by fire is always, always triable. Either way, even if the criminal damage arson by fire is to a mattress valued at £10 the value off the damage is irrelevant if it's criminal damage by fire damage to a mattress value £10 5 Live the way client can elect far by jury, if you will. She wants to remember with criminal damage. Most of the time, the value is relevant. Damage below £5000. Summary. Only £5000 or above started either way. Okay, let's now consider in relation to these common offenses at Drugs Offenses section for me of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Now there are many offenses, of course, in relation to plugs, but I just want to deal with the most common ones. If I may, A possession of drugs and possession of drugs with intent to supply. You will come across other offenses in relation to drugs, but they're not considered in this particular weapon. Our I'm thinking of things like cultivation of cannabis on producing goods, manufacturing drugs. These are all of Venice's under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. And as you know, the act categorizes drugs with Class A at being the most serious, followed by Class B and Class C. Being the least serious, the prosecution must show that your client, the suspect or the defendant possess it's a controlled drug. Under the act, possession involves physical possession on knowledge of possession. If someone does not know they have them, then of course, there is no possession. But forgetfulness is no events. It may be that you're applying is in possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal use that he only uses that jacket very occasionally, and he tells you what he simply forgotten that he put the canopies. He's jacket pocket because he knew that he was in possession of it at the time when he put it in his jacket pocket. But he's now forgotten about it, but I'm afraid yes, possession does not come or go with your memory. Even though you've forgotten you got something in law, you still possess it physical possession or subject to your controlled classic. The drugs are in the glove compartment of the car, and it's your car you are deemed to be in possession off items that are subject to your control. People in joint possession of drugs, where they all draw from a common pool of blood, swell at more than one person that might be possession, whether a group of people in a house or knowing that drugs are there ALS drawing from a common. But the meeting knowledge at the existence of bloods in a house is not sufficient for possession. The prosecution do not need to prove that the defendant knew it was a drug. The prosecution must prove possession, knowledge of possession and the fact that it was a drug. I just clarify that the prosecution do not need to prove it was a particular type of drug. My class A Class B might be classy. Your client might have thought it was a Class C drug, but if it turns out to be a class A drug he's still in possession or feeds. Of course, the penalties might be very different for possession of a Class A drug rather than a Class C drug on that might involve a Newton hearing. I have a little chat about that you know about now, as I put that, the prosecution must prove possession, knowledge or possession off the drug, however, see Section 28 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 very important section shall be acquitted if he proves that he neither believed nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect that the substance or product in question was a controlled block. So they are. There's the defense. It may be that your client says, Well, yeah, being found to be in possession of drugs. But I neither believe nor suspected nor in an objective sense, had any reason to suspect that the substance that I was in possession off was indeed a controller. Self induced intoxication, of course, will not be a defense, because reason to suspect is an objective test rather than subject. It will not be a defense that the defendant thought that it was another type of broke. Of course, it may call for a new tin hearing as it made materially affect the sentence. Of course, a Newton hearing will take place following a guilty plea where the client said, Yeah, but I thought I was in possession of Class C. KROQ's. I didn't know there were class, and you will. In those circumstances. Of course, the guilty plea is being entered on the basis of possession of plants. See if the crown don't accept that. No doubt it would make a material difference to the centers. The case will need to be adjourned. Evidence will need to be heard for the court to establish whether all know the crown of poop factually beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he was in possession or a Class A. The burden is upon the prosecution to establish their backs to the required criminal standard in a Newton hearing. The leading case in this particular area is R B. Navarro Navarra on the city of Westminster magistrate, where evidence is adduced by the defendant. As I put their, the burden is still upon the crown to show factually beyond a reasonable doubt the actual nature or classifications of the drugs. Watch out for possession of drugs with intent to supply them to another. It may well be that there is a suspicion bearing in mind the drug related paraphernalia upon your client upon arrest, bearing in mind the way in which the drugs were package upon arrest. It may well be that the police suspect that he is indeed a Do you accept, Nyah? Of course, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the penalties for supply that drugs are so much harsher than those or simple possession and maybe on occasion that you would advice applying to have a no comment interview on merely read out a statement of the client accepting that he was in possession of the drugs. But they were possession for his own personal circumstances and that he wasn't a supplier. Of course, it may be problematic if they've got a house search under Section 18. Pace on. They discovered along sorts of things at his house address, including lists including money which would, of course, lend weight to their arguments that he is a supplier. A plus now, so sure supply is still supply. This is something offer that misunderstood by clients who've seem to think that you can only be guilty of supplying a control blood if you're doing it commercially, if there's money involved. If you're seeking to make some sort of profit, I'm afraid this is not the case. If you're supplying your mates out of the goodness of your heart with drugs, you are nevertheless at drugs supply. These matters, of course, go to sentence, but they don't go to guilt, and it may well be that if the client is supplying his mates, that's the very last thing he wants to be saying during his interview. It may well be pertinent on appropriate toe if I seem to go, you coming as I put there. It's a requirement that the prosecuted specify the class of drug that they allege is being supplied. Nickel A B, we'll see. And as already mentioned, if there is going to be any dispute in relation to this, it may well call for a looting hearing. In order to the crown who seek to establish their backs to the required criminal stand, the men's Veria is intention to supply mere recklessness that will not do. Do please be aware off the definitive guideline on drugs offenses published by the sentencing council. At least particular guidelines came out in February 2000 and 12. Of course, that whilst you're wrong at the sentencing council website, do please, please have a look at all of the other guideline. We have guidelines coming around to our years on the gave me tremendously useful to you. Not only that, when advising clients at the police station stage as to whether or not he or she should no comment the interview, but also at wise in the clients have called in relation to their plane. How can I just say a couple of words, please? He's about at the police station. Strange. Now it may be that your client has made full admissions to you of the offense in question. There may be jolly good reasons for advising him or her to go. No comment. But I just need to point out by May the case of Caylee c A L E y Caylee another's December 2000 and 12 a very important case in which the Lord Chief Justice said that if you advise no comment, he having made full admissions to it, might impact upon his sentence because There are circumstances in which the judge will regard the fact that admissions were made during the interview as an important mitigating factor that whereby the sentence is started at a lower starting point than it otherwise would be. And from that lower starting point. Whatever credit is coming, the clients way is given dependent upon being indication off guilt on the timing of that particular indication. Well, there you are. I've done be five common offenses in relation to this particular webinar. Don't forget the very part one in which I've considered the other six common offenses. So those 11 together will give you a very decent grounding in the offenses on the defense's. If you're going to have to sit this sub examination as part of your police station on accreditation examination. It's also, of course, incredibly useful to you that when advising clients at the police station stage, well, they are now. That's the our up and all that remains is to thank you on behalf of Data law for listening to me watching this particular webinar and hopefully for watching the other webinar as well. I do do quite a few webinars with data law, and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future. Thank you
00:57:37
