Our client then received a summons to court for driving his friend’s car without insurance. On examining the insurance policy schedule at section H,  it clearly referred to cover for driving a vehicle not belonging to the insured party.

Enquiries were made with the household name company who claimed that although the policy referred to this cover, unless the actual certificate of motor insurance specifically stated that the insured was allowed to use a motor vehicle not belonging to them, they would not confirm cover. This appeared very harsh, bearing in mind the assurances our client had received on the telephone from the insurance department telling him that he was covered. The insurance company were not forthcoming with providing a copy of the recording of the telephone call, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided, upon representations being made on our client’s behalf, that it was not in the public interest  to proceed, and so the case was dropped.

Both defendants appeared before the Aberystwyth magistrates court in March 2013. Discussions were held between Robyn Reed from our office, and the prosecuting solicitor, who was ultimately persuaded to amend the charge of production to one of cultivation, as there was no evidence that cannabis had been produced and yielded: what in fact had occurred was an unsuccessful attempt to grow cannabis.

Both defendants entered guilty pleas to possession, and the second defendant also pleaded guilty to cultivation of cannabis. Lengthy representations were made to the magistrates to persuade them to sentence the defendants at the bottom end of the guidelines for offences of this nature. Both defendants had no previous convictions, and after taking some time to consider the position, both were sentenced to a 24 month conditional discharge, together with an order for costs, and destruction of the items seized.

The defendant was clearly at risk of losing his liberty and under the sentencing guidelines the starting point was three years custody with a third reduction for entering a guilty plea. Had he been sentenced before 3rd December 2012 he would have received an immediate custodial sentence but as the law changed on that date the court were able to suspend sentences of up to two years .

Our client received a two year custodial sentence suspended for two years with an unpaid work requirement.

On the day in question, our client had met with the child’s mother and they had discussed her wish to have more contact with their son. The couple were getting on well and shared a meal and drinks together. They returned to the flat where our client was staying, and where sexual intercourse subsequently took place. Both parties consumed significant quantities of alcohol.

When the complainant left the flat our client went to sleep, and was later awoken by police who told him that an allegation of rape had been made.

We duly attended Neath police station where our client was interviewed. He was very frank in his disclosure of the details of what had occurred between himself and the complainant, and was insistent at all times that all sexual activity had been entirely consensual. Notwithstanding the level of alcohol consumed,  he had a fine memory for detail and his frank and detailed disclosure in interview served our client well, and contrasted sharply with the confused and contradictory evidence eventually given in court by the complainant. She was unable to answer most questions put to her by defence counsel other than by saying that she couldn’t remember. Medical evidence was less than supportive of her case.

The judge and barristers struggled gamely with the correct form of address for our client who, by the time of the trial, was to all effects and purposes a woman but in questioning and in summing up was nevertheless frequently referred to by the masculine pronoun.

The jury needed only minutes to reach a not guilty verdict on all counts, and our delighted client burst from the court to speak freely with the assembled media representatives, expressing her longing to now fade from the temporary spotlight, and to continue her life in peace and quiet.

Both clients appeared at the  Magistrates’ Court in  November 2012, when we made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service that it was not in the public interest to proceed against the wife whose involvement had been very limited. We argued that as the husband was accepting full responsibility for growing the plants and bearing in mind his wife’s medical condition, it would not be in the public interest to proceed against her.  Having reviewed the file and discussed it further, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against her.  This was a great relief to them both and of particular importance to her, as if convicted she faced deportation.

In terms of the remaining charge against the husband, which was one of production of cannabis, we persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to amend this to cultivation, as this was his first attempt at growing the plants and he had not in fact cropped them yet and therefore what he had done did not go far enough to satisfy the definition of “production”.  After hearing detailed mitigation , the Magistrates adjourned the case for the preparation of a pre-sentence report looking at all options including custody.  Under the new Drugs Sentencing Guidelines this case fell within Category 3, Lesser Role, which placed client’s liberty  in jeopardy, with  a custodial sentence being a real risk.

At the sentencing hearing at the Magistrates’ Court in December 2012, detailed submissions were made on behalf of our client setting out the background situation in this case which had led to his decision to start growing the cannabis plants. Furthermore it was explained that once the plants were cropped his intention was to juice the cannabis and drink it rather than smoke it and this would avoid any psychedelic effects.  The Magistrates listened sympathetically to the detailed mitigation and submissions that genuine medical use such as this should really be allowed within the law, and they departed from their usual guidelines in serious cases of this nature and took the exceptional step of imposing a conditional discharge for six months.

The police were joined by reinforcements and our client was further pepper sprayed and assaulted and then taken to a local police station under arrest for assault on police, which he denied.

He was interviewed on tape and gave as full a description as he could of the events of the night, denying assault. However, he was charged with two counts of assault on police.

The case was heard by Carmarthen Magistrates. There was one defence witness who had been at the party and who gave evidence. The police officers gave their evidence and were cross examined, and their evidence was inconsistent and so the magistrates acquitted the defendant.

An important aspect of this case had been the research into the circumstances where it was appropriate to use Pave spray and the official guidance thereon.

Following investigations by the police, he was eventually charged with production of cannabis and bailed to Carmarthen Magistrates Court on September 12th 2012. He pleaded guilty on the  basis that the set-up was a non commercial operation, and therefore fell within category 3 of the new guidelines. The magistrates adjourned for a pre sentence report.

When our client attended court again for sentencing on 3rd October, following representations from the defence he received a sentence of 12 months community order with supervision, unpaid work for 80 hours, with a drug rehabilitation requirement.

This had been a very serious allegation of production of cannabis and it was partly thanks to the prepared statement made at the police station at the outset  limiting the client’s involvement  that the advocate  was able to successfully present matters in a favourable light at court. The court were then able to assess the offence as falling into the lower band of the sentencing guidelines, which resulted in a community penalty rather than a custodial sentence.

He explained to the police that he had permission  from a foreman at the site to visit and remove metal items for scrap value, and that he carried  tools in order to separate the metal from wooden items.

Our client was subsequently charged with going equipped for theft and he was bailed to court, where a further charge of theft was added.

The case was adjourned for trial,  and our client had a number of witnesses who could confirm that they owned sites and had given him permission to collect scrap metal. When eventually the case was listed for trial on 21st May 2012 at Neath Magistrates Court the prosecution decided to offer no evidence and so the proceedings were dropped.

When he reached home he collected the brush and shovel and, being anxious to return to the scene of the crash as soon as possible, he, without thinking, drove his Land Rover back towards where the car was abandoned. En route a police vehicle passed him and he suddenly remembered that he had two weeks before transferred his insurance  from the Land Rover to the Corsa, so he got out and walked the rest of the way.

He reached the crash scene and police attended. He was breathalysed with a negative result. He was asked whether he was also the owner of the Land Rover and he confirmed that he was, and admitted that he wasn’t covered by insurance.

We advised client that driving without insurance is a strict liability offence  and that he was guilty, and was likely to get 6 – 8 points added to his licence plus a fine. Because client was a new driver having passed his test less than two years before, his licence would be revoked and he would have to retake his test.

However, we suggested that there was a potential argument in this case that the client could exceptionally argue  there were special reasons why he should not be disqualified. These would be  that there had been an emergency  in that after the crash there had been debris left in the road and the driving had been in order to return to the scene to make it safe by clearing up the debris. In other words, he had been acting as a Good Samaritan.

We wrote to the CPS with these representations and, having considered the submission, the CPS lawyer decided that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the case and the matter was dropped altogether, to the delight of the client. Furthermore, he was eligible to have his legal costs refunded.

She was interviewed by the police at length. She accepted full responsibility for the grow tents and the cannabis plants and explained in great detail how she believed that cannabis was a sacred plant and that she used it in various religious ceremonial ways. She also explained that she used cannabis for its health giving properties, making juice from the fresh young plants, and powdering down the dried cannabis to take as a medication for menstrual cramps. She also explained how it could be consumed as an ingredient in chocolate. She said that she was a vegan and had a raw foods lifestyle. She had never realised or believed that what she was doing was putting her and her child into such conflict with the law.

The case was sent to the Crown Court and, under the new sentencing guidelines, she was at very real risk of a custodial sentence even though she was of clean character and was a single parent.  The prosecution maintained that the plants could have produced between 5 – 10kg of cannabis flowering tops, with a commercial value of over £56,000. The case would therefore come within Category 2 under the guidelines and attract a starting point of a years custody, if the defendant was categorised as having a “lesser role”.

The defence obtained an expert Report indicating that the setup which she had used was not at all sophisticated, and the defendant entered a guilty plea in the Crown Court on a limited basis that she accepted cultivating the plants, and possession of the cannabis, but for her own use only. She relied on her explanations given in interview that she grew the plants for health giving properties, pain relief and religious purposes. She reiterated that the growing conditions were relatively unsophisticated. She provided excellent character references to the court.

At the sentencing hearing at Taunton Crown Court the prosecution accepted the basis of her plea but argued that the plants were valued at £56,000 and the court should sentence using the new guidelines. The judge however, having heard the defence submissions, agreed that this particular case fell outside those guidelines and so he was able to give a suspended four month custodial sentence linked to 180 hours of unpaid work.