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.)

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.

The Defendant attended Carmarthen Police Station for interview, following an allegation made to the Police by a Water Bailiff that the Defendant had threatened him in his boat on the River Towy, waved a gaff (or fishing spear) at him and made threats towards him. The Defendant is one of the few licensed coracle fishermen on the River Towy.

The Defendant’s case was that he had been with his son and had gone out on the river in his coracle to bring in his boat for the winter. The boat was tied on its moorings in the river and, as he approached, he saw a rib (or rigid inflatable boat) which was travelling at some speed up the river, potentially  causing danger and/or damage to his coracle. The Defendant reached his boat and managed to climb onto it, but very shortly thereafter the rib returned and the Water Bailiff demanded a search of the Defendant’s boat to look for fishing nets. The Defendant told the Bailiff that he was licensed to fish, but had not been fishing, merely mooring the boat. The Bailiff claimed that the Defendant then threatened him by waving a gaff, and used threatening language towards him.

The case went to trial and was heard by the Carmarthen Magistrates on 2nd April 2009. The Defendant called as a character witness another Water Bailiff who had known him for over 20 years, and he confirmed to the Magistrates that he had never known any trouble from the Defendant. The Magistrates listened to the evidence on both sides and then acquitted the Defendant of both charges.

The Coopers were cleared of all charges laid against them.

We were instructed by Kyra Cooper who, with her mother Lady Cooper, was accused of causing criminal damage to the bungalow belonging to the ex Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys, Terence Grange. They were accused of entering property as trespassers, and not leaving at the request of the displaced residential occupier or his agent. Kyra was also accused of assault to an estate agent who had been showing her and her mother around the property. Both pleaded not guilty. The case went to trial in the Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court and after hearing all the evidence both defendants were acquitted.

It was an interesting case as it was one of the first in Dyfed Powys where the prosecution had  brought a charge under the  Criminal Trespass legislation which makes it an offence to enter property as a trespasser and not to vacate when asked to do so by a displaced residential occupier. There were a number of interesting legal issues in the case and the defence was that the defendants did not enter the property as trespassers as they had been invited in by the agent, the Police were not acting on the authority of Terence Grange, and he was not a displaced residential occupier as he was not living at the property.

The circumstances were that Lady Cooper had arranged with  estate agents to view the property, and then she and Kyra Cooper had shut themselves therein, together with Kyra’s 11 day old baby, leaving the estate agent outside. The police were summoned to attend, both by the agent, and by Lady Cooper, and when the police attended, they were told by Lady Cooper that the property was squatted as a peaceful protest.

Carmarthen Magistrates heard the case on 22nd and 23rd September 2008. Kyra Cooper was represented by Carina Hughes of counsel, instructed by our firm, and Lady Cooper represented herself. In her evidence Lady Cooper explained how they had occupied the bungalow as a protest against Dyfed Powys Police having ignored various complaints they had made over a period of years.

In Court the Magistrates heard evidence from a number of police officers who had attended the ex Chief Constable’s bungalow at the time, which included two Police Inspectors. The Court heard how the police, on finding the front door barricaded, and after some unfruitful negotiations with the defendants, made a decision to storm the property from the back, breaking through the glass patio doors, although it was conceded in Court that they were in possession of a full set of house keys and had not tried the key to the back door. Had they done so, it was stated in Court that they would have found the back door unlocked and not barricaded.

The Court  heard that the police were not acting on the authority of Terence Grange to break into the bungalow and carry out the arrests as he had not been spoken to at that stage, and the Court was told by the defendants that they were not trespassers as they had entered the property on the invitation of the estate agent.

After hearing all the evidence the Magistrates cleared both defendants of the charges against them.

Click here to go to the BBC news website for further information regarding this case

One protester managed to get a bike in the trees

We acted for six individuals on 19th June 2007 and six more on 20th June 2007 who were arrested at the Brecon Tree Camp where there was a longstanding protest against the gas pipeline, and the destruction of the local habitat. On 7th June 2007 at Cardiff Crown Court an Injunction Order was issued to the National Grid and following this on 19th and 20th June announcements were made by the High Sherriff and High Court Enforcement Officers requiring all those present to leave the Penpont Site immediately. Those who did not leave were arrested for obstruction contrary to Section 10 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and taken to Brecon Police Station.

Two individuals were charged with obstruction and taken to Llandrindod Magistrates Court on 20th June 2007 and received a Conditional Discharge for 12 months, with £50 costs. One other individual was charged and taken to Brecon Magistrates Court on 21st June. She was given a Conditional Discharge with no costs

Apart from one case which was not proceeded with, all the other protestors accepted police cautions.

See the following links for more information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6220928.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6317237.stm

On 23rd September 2006 a man was arrested on an allegation of having committed three burglaries at the same house in Carmarthenshire. He was unable to communicate his name or details and the police were not able to trace him on their computer system. He was kept in custody at the police station for an extended period whilst efforts were made to find a way to communicate with him, but to no avail.

Eventually he was charged with three counts of burglary and taken to the Llanelli Magistrates Court, but as he was unable to understand the proceedings the case was adjourned for seven days for further efforts to be made to establish which language he may speak.

There is a belief that he may come from a small community at the base of the Atlas Mountains called the Berber Tribe, as some of his writing has been seen.

When the case came back before the magistrates on 5th October 2006 very difficult issues were raised as to how to fairly conduct a trial when there is no interpreter, and it is impossible to establish the defendant’s mental health also.

The court decided that as the defendant could not be asked whether he wished for Crown or Magistrates Court Trial, the matter had to be sent to the Crown Court, and therefore the case was adjourned for a committal hearing on 2nd November.

Click here to see the BBC News article : Mystery prisoner baffles court’

The Unknown Man (Mr Ibrahimi) Speaks!

On the 19th of October, with the help of a Berber interpreter who came forward after seeing a photograph of the unknown man on the TV news, it was at last possible to communicate with our client who told us his name was Hassan Ibrahimi, aged 26, and we were able to obtain brief initial instructions from him.

The Unknown Man appeals against his sentence:

On the 17th of November 2006, the Llanelli magistrates sentenced Mr. Ibrahimi to four months imprisonment on each of the three burglary charges he faced, to run consecutively, making a total of twelve months.  They also recommended deportation.  Mr. Ibrahimi decided to lodge an immediate appeal against sentence to the Crown Court.

The Unknown Man wins his appeal:

On 22nd December 2006 the appeal against sentence was heard at Swansea Crown Court, and His Honour Judge Michael Burr allowed the appeal. He amended the sentence to a total of six months, enabling Mr Inbrahimi’s imminent release. However, he will then be subject to immigration procedures in relation to his asylum application.

The Judge remarked that he and the magistrates sitting with him had great sympathy for the defendant. They understood his background and particular circumstances. He was not a burglar in the ordinary sense of the word as he had “little option to find food and shelter.”

The court made no recommendation as to deportation.

Raphael Gray - Curador

Raphael was arrested at his home on the 23 March 2000. Police and FBI agents arrived in the early hours of the morning. It was alleged that he had intruded into nine e-commerce websites in Britain, America, Canada, Thailand and Japan and taken details of some 26,000 credit card numbers and disclosed some of the credit card information on the Internet.

Raphael, who was only 18 at the time explained to the police and FBI when he was interviewed that he had been concerned for sometime at the inherent security weakness in one particular make of software called Microsoft Internet Information Server. This inherent weakness enabled remote users to access information stored on computers using this software. Raphael explained he had contacted a number of e-commerce sites using this software and pointed out the security weakness but they had ignored him, and he had also contacted Bill Gates, the Microsoft Chief who again ignored him. He went on to explain that he was known on the website as “Curador”, “Custodian” or “The Saint” and he finally decided that the best way of bringing this to public attention was to publish some of the credit card numbers on a website which he set up. The prosecution accepted throughout that Raphael’s motivation was to expose and publish the fact that the e-commerce retailers were not security conscious, and secondly to broadcast the message that due to their indifference to security, individuals ought not to entrust e-commerce retailers with their credit card details. In this case Raphael initially faced a ten count indictment, each count alleging he caused a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access and with attempt to facilitate the commission of an offence to which section 2 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 applied. The case involved complex and novel points of law, and from the start there was intense media interest both in this country and abroad. At the plea and directions hearing on 20/10/00 Raphael entered not guilty pleas to all counts and the prosecution indicated they wish to serve an amended indictment. This was served a month later when the prosecution put their case in an entirely different way. The new indictment had six initial counts alleging an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 section 2(1), alleging the defendant had committed an offence under section 3(1) of the Computer Misuse Act by doing an act which caused an unauthorised modification of the contents of a computer. The remaining four counts alleged obtaining services by deception on two separate occasions, by using a credit card number he had downloaded to set up two separate websites upon which to display the credit card information. and the related offences under the Computer Misuse Act section 2(1). This raised the totally new issue of modification. The defence instructed a computer security expert, Mr Peter Sommer to advise on the complex issues of authorisation and modification, and he advised that what Raphael had done did not amount to modification of the contents of a computer as alleged by the prosecution in the first six counts.
On 28 March 2001 the prosecution indicated they would reduce the first six counts to section 1 charges of simple unauthorised access if the defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining four counts. After lengthy discussion Raphael agreed to this compromise and was finally given a two year community rehabilitation order.
As there was no trial the complex and novel issues of unauthorised access and modification of a computer were never decided, but undoubtedly these issues will come before the court again in the near future.

See the following BBC news articles regarding this case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/817762.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1424937.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1426659.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1434530.stm

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen

The firm was involved in representing the peace protestors but Mike Reed ended up as one of the 17 defendants in High Court proceedings brought by the Council. The saga began in March 1985 when the Home Office encouraged the Carmarthenshire District Council to build an emergency control centre (nuclear bunker) with the promise of a 75% grant.

The Council began work without planning permission, but in September 1985 local peace protestors occupied the site, thereby stopping work. The Council evicted the protestors with a writ for possession and then built a 12ft high spiked fence around the site which was guarded by a security firm and Alsatian dogs. On 25th October 1985 the protestors obtained a High Court Injunction stopping work as the Council had no planning permission, and then carried out a canvas of some 8000 local residents, which showed that 97% of local people canvassed were against the bunker. The Carmarthenshire District Council then gave themselves planning permission in December and work continued.

In January 1986 there was a demonstration and a number of protestors attempted to climb over the security fence and gain access to the site and some were injured by security guards, including one woman who had her finger torn off. On 19th March 1986, Carmarthenshire District Council obtained a High Court Injunction against 17 peace protestors, including Mike Reed preventing them from entering the construction site, blockading it, or inciting others to do so. The proceedings also included a claim of damages of up to £250,000 alleging conspiracy to trespass.

The High Court proceedings had serious implications for the peace movement in general and for the civil liberties of any group involved in peaceful protest. The injunction itself prevented any of the defendants continuing with the entirely lawful means of protest, as if they did they could be taken back to court for contempt on the basis that their actions would have incited others.

The action for damages for tortious conspiracy had far wider implications, as if the Council had succeeded it would have meant that any group of protestors involved in for instance protesting at the site of a nuclear installation or an American Base, or a factory where animal experiments were carried out would be liable to be sued for damages for conspiracy to trespass, and the damages claimed could consist of all the extra security precautions taken by the institution in question such as erecting a fence or employing security guards.

After a number of court proceedings and with intense media interest and widespread support from the public for the protestors, the Council eventually dropped the case. The true cost of building the Nuclear Bunker, employing the security firm and taking out court proceedings is unknown. Shortly after the conclusion of this case, government policy changed as the Cold War came to an end and it is believed the bunker has never been used.

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen

Nuclear Bunker Carmarthen