We were contacted by our client who had been asked by the police to attend at Aberystwyth Police Station following the execution of a warrant at his address under the Misuse of Drugs Act, whereby they had recovered a small quantity of cannabis.

We duly attended with our client at the police station on 28^th November 2011.  Having obtained disclosure from the police it was clear that they did not have a copy of the warrant (issued by the Magistrates) with them when they executed the search at his address and it had only been produced at a later date.  We therefore advised our client during interview to make a short prepared statement setting this out and neither accepting nor denying whether the drugs found belonged to him.  Following interview, he was charged with possession of cannabis and bailed to attend Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 21^st December 2011.

At Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 21^st December 2011 representations were made to the prosecution regarding this case and that the evidence obtained should be excluded under the PACE codes of conduct due to the deficiencies with the warrant.  Having considered the position and taken advice from his superior, the CPS lawyer decided to withdraw the proceedings and our client was released from court.

This case highlights the importance of having a solicitor with you at the police station to obtain full disclosure from the police regarding the evidence held and then to give you the appropriate legal advice before answering questions during interview.  Had client been in attendance without a solicitor, it is likely that he would have answered all police questions which may have led to an admission of guilt which could have been used against him to prove the case at court and led to a criminal conviction.

He had purchased the steroids on a street market and had believed that to possess them was legal. His intention had been to use them himself, but in fact he had not done so. He elected for Crown Court trial.

The prosecution did not offer any evidence in the case when it came before the Crown Court and the defendant was acquitted. He had a defence under section 130 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 if the drugs were in the form of a medicinal product. Section 130 states that a medicinal product is one which is used for a medicinal purpose, or as an ingredient in the preparation of a substance or article to be administered for a medicinal purpose. After manufacture or sale, the section goes on, the item shall not cease to be a medicinal product if it is sold, supplied, imported or exported in another way. ( abbreviated )

In this case, the forensic scientist confirmed that the substances were in medicinal form, and so the defendant was told by the judge that he had not committed any offence, and was free to go.

(See the case of R -v- Stephen Gary Foster, Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 2010 EWCA Crim 2247   2010 WL 3927823  Before Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Supperstone 14th Sept 2010.)

Both were subsequently charged with burglary, but when the case came to the Magistrates’ court the two defendants were separated as the co-defendant pleaded not guilty and accepted trial in the lower court, and our client pleaded not guilty and opted for trial in the higher court.

Whilst our client awaited the listing of his trial in the Crown court, the co-defendant’s case came up for trial in the Magistrates’ court. On the day, instead of the case proceeding to trial, the prosecution accepted from the co-defendant a plea of guilty to handling stolen goods, so the burglary charge against him was dropped. We were initially informed that he might give evidence against our client as a prosecution witness in the Crown court.

What had happened in the Magistrates court in the co-defendant’s case could clearly have had a detrimental and potentially prejudicial effect on our client’s forthcoming Crown court trial and so counsel advised a number of searching questions be put to the CPS in a letter, asking them to explain how the decision had been made to take the course which had been taken against the co-defendant in the lower court, and to disclose details of discussions and notes.

The CPS after lengthy consideration decided to offer no evidence in the case against our client and so the case was dismissed, with our client’s expenses paid from central funds.

He had passed his full driving licence and had applied to the DVLA on 8th July 2010 for a HGV licence. On handing in the documents he had been told that he could drive with L plates and an authorised driver with him.

The circumstances were that he had been driving a lorry between Newcastle Emlyn and Carmarthen with his mother who was a full licence holder for the vehicle, when they were stopped by police. The police officer made enquiries and the DVLA told him that the application for HGV had been received on 16th July but not yet granted. He subsequently received a court summons and instructed us to represent him.

Further enquiries with the DVLA revealed that his new licence with provisional entitlement to drive a lorry was not sent to our client until 21st August 2010.

When the case came to court in October 2010 we held negotiations with the prosecutor, and also contacted the insurance company, who confirmed that our client was covered to drive the vehicle on a third party basis. In those circumstances we advised our client to plead guilty to the single charge of driving not in accordance with a licence. The prosecution withdrew the charge of no insurance and the magistrates imposed a small fine and three penalty points.

This was a very important case for our client who, as a young driver, would have faced losing his licence if he had been found guilty of no insurance. This would have had a devastating effect on him as he was a nationally recognised horseman and travelled all over the country to show horses.

This particular case illustrates some of the complexity of the insurance and provisional licence regulations for HGVs and young drivers, and points to the importance of instructing a solicitor experienced in this field.

Our client had purchased some mephedrone in December 2009, and when he was stopped by police in his vehicle in July 2010 there was a wrap from that time in his vehicle containing traces of mephedrone.

He was arrested and at the police station the police indicated he did not need legal advice as the matter was likely to be dealt with by means of a caution. He was interviewed on tape and explained he had purchased the wrap when mephedrone was legal, and had not realised there was anything left in it. He was bailed to return to the police station after analysis of the item.

When our client returned to the police station he was charged with possession of mephedrone and bailed to Aberystwyth Magistrates Court, and he then sought legal advice for the first time, and we became involved in the case.

In November 2010 he pleaded not guilty to the offence and he elected for Crown court trial. We subsequently made representations to the C.P.S. that it was not in the public interest to proceed due to the minute quantity found, and the fact that the Crown could not gainsay his assertion that he had purchased it when it was still a legal substance.

After consideration the C.P.S. decided to discontinue the case against our client. This was a great relief to him as he had been fearful of losing his employment had he been convicted.

He had been apprehended by Tesco security staff on leaving the store, and accused of theft of items he had hanging in a bag from the hook of the trolley. He immediately stated that he had completely forgotten the items, and would of course go straight away to pay for them, as he had already done for a considerable number of other items in the body of his trolley.

Tesco however had other ideas. He was marched through the store to the Manager’s office where police were called, and he was arrested for theft and taken to Carmarthen Police Station. He was interviewed on tape and  he felt confident that common sense would prevail and no charges would follow. He had the impression from the police that they were of the same mind, but because of their policy of referring cases to the CPS for advice on charging, they could not make the decision themselves. Our client was somewhat reassured however by the police that he didn’t have much to worry about and the whole matter was likely to come to a fairly swift and sensible conclusion.

Nothing of the kind!  Several inconclusive bailbacks later, our client was informed that the CPS had taken the decision to charge him with theft. It was at the point of charge that he first sought legal advice and we became involved.

At the Magistrates’ Court our client elected for Crown Court trial, and the case came before the Crown Court in Swansea on 3rd December 2010.  The judge indicated that he had read through the case papers and that the prosecution should think carefully about their decision to prosecute the case at all, and he expressed surprise that a case had been taken against a man of this age and of completely clean character, who had from the very beginning given his explanation of forgetfulness, and had indeed already paid for the bulk of his shopping. He indicated that the Courts were for dealing with “proper” cases.

After a short adjournment the Crown prosecutor returned and informed the court that she would be offering no evidence against the defendant after all and so a formal Not Guilty verdict was entered.

All is not well that ends well neccessarily, as this gentleman has been banned from shopping in Tesco stores for life. We hope that we can get that directive reversed, and will be writing to the manager of the store. Our client has also  suffered the humiliation of appearances in the public courts, and the stress the whole matter has caused to himself and his family over a period of many weeks.  A substantial amount of public money has been wasted in bringing the case against our client. Perhaps if Tesco are determined to prosecute all matters of alleged shoplifting, whatever the circumstances, they should fund such prosecutions in house and not use taxpayers money to execute their policy.

Our client did not ask for legal representation. She had had no drugs found on her. Had we been present and advised her at the police station we would have advised her to make no comment to all questions, or to make a short written statement saying that none of the substances found in the car were anything to do with her. No further action could have ultimately been taken against her in those circumstances.

However, the police interviewed her at length and she was very casual in her replies, admitting that she had consumed substances whilst travelling in the car with her friends, and chatting generally with the officer about drugs and drug use.

When we returned to Cardiff Bay police station with her in September 2010  the officer informed her that she was eligible for a caution, as she had a clean record. The caution would be for possession of ketamine. We clarified with the officer that this possession referred only to a substance that she  had admitted in the interview to consuming prior to her arrest.

It is rare for police to take action in these circumstances as of course they have seized no actual substance  and it cannot be proved what the substance consumed had been.  (No blood or urine tests had been carried out). However, in this case they proposed cautioning our client for possession. Although a caution is not a conviction, it can lead to difficulties in getting work in certain fields, such as teaching, and this particular client was heading for a career in teaching. We  advised our client that she had  two options, the first being to accept the caution and the matter would then come to an end, but there might be implications for her future career and travel prospects. Secondly she could choose to refuse the caution, in which case the police would charge her with the offence and the matter would go to court, but at some stage would very likely be discontinued, particularly if she elected to go to the crown court.  Further we advised her that, if she decided on the second option, when she was charged she should reply that although she had admitted in interview that she had consumed ketamine, she could not be sure if that was what the substance she had taken had been.

After careful consideration of the options, our client decided to refuse the caution, make the suggested comment on charge, and await developments at court.

The case came before the Cardiff magistrates in October and to our client’s delight and relief the Crown Prosecutor withdrew the charge of possession of ketamine, and the court ordered that costs should be paid from central funds.

We successfully argued before the licensing committee that they should disregard one of the convictions as it was a spent conviction. Furthermore, we argued that as the client had only two other minor convictions it would be disproportionate to refuse the license based on those alone.

The committee agreed, and the client was granted his licence

He explained that he had been stopped on 12th June 2010 whilst driving his mother’s car. The police made enquiries with the DVLA for the vehicle and found that he was not covered under his mother’s insurance. He explained to the police that his own insurance policy covered him to drive another person’s insured vehicle with their consent, but that he didn’t have his policy documents with him. The police made no enquiries as they could have done using details of his own vehicle, but seized his mother’s car and gave him a slip to produce his insurance documents at the police station within seven days, which he did.

Astonishingly a decision was subsequently made to prosecute him for no insurance!  He duly received a postal summons and contacted us to represent him at court.

At the first court hearing the case was adjourned for him to prove that he had had his mother’s consent to drive her car. He was also required to show that his certificate of insurance had been valid on the date he had been stopped by the police, even though the certificate was valid for a year from 12th May 2010!

It wasn’t until the second court hearing that matters resolved in his favour when the prosecution offered no evidence. The case was dismissed and  the court ordered that the defendant’s costs should be paid from central funds.

We are now in the process of recovering the £150 which our client had paid to release his mother’s car from the pound where it had been held following its seizure by the police.

If you should find yourself in a similarly unfortunate position as this client, don’t give up – get good legal advice and assistance at court.

On our advice the client used a written statement setting out his response to the police allegations against him, giving an innocent and plausible explanation for them, and then he declined to further elaborate when questioned by the officers. This is a technique which is useful in certain circumstances, and can be very protective of the client’s position, but it is important to cover all the relevant points in the statement, and if neccessary to make a further written statement if further matters are disclosed during the interview.

In the event, the client was ultimately charged with conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, together with seven other persons. If convicted he was likely to get a substantial prison sentence.

The case came before the Crown Court in Swansea on 5th March 2010 and the client entered not guilty pleas. The court arranged a further hearing for a case review prior to the trial beginning, and at the review hearing on 25th June 2010 the prosecution conceded that there was insufficient evidence against the client . They had clearly been unable to gainsay the explanations given by the client in the police interviews, and so the crown dropped the case against him.