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.

The evidence against our client was very thin from the start, and he consistently denied any involvement in the conspiracy. The prosecution showed that  his fingerprint was  found at one of the three alleged locations. There were text messages which the prosecution interpreted as suspicious, and police observations had recorded sightings of a vehicle owned by an old acquaintance of our client on a main road near one of the alleged locations.

Our client set out in his defence statement to the court his innocent explanation for his fingerprint being found, and for the text messages.

The case was listed for a Plea and Case Management hearing on 21st May. On 14th May 2010 however,  the defence for two of the defendants including our client made applications to the Crown Court judge for dismissal. Our case was that there was no evidence implicating our client in the conspiracy, and following detailed submissions the case against him was discharged.

He gave evidence on oath that if disqualified he would suffer exceptional hardship. He explained to the magistrates that because his licence was essential for his work,  he would be likely to be dismissed  if  he lost his his licence, and he produced a letter from his employer to that effect.

He further gave evidence that he lived with his elderly parents who were in poor health and  he  needed to be available to drive them to appointments in hospital in Swansea, and no-one else was available to do this.

The magistrates decided, after hearing his evidence, that he would suffer exceptional hardship if he were to be disqualified and so they imposed three points, fined him £100 plus a victim surcharge and prosecution costs.

In interview his main purpose was to get out as quickly as possible, and this led him to the unfortunate decision to go into the interview alone. In interview he admitted possessing the cocaine which was found in his car, and admitted that he had supplied cocaine to his two friends by sharing it with them.

He was released on bail for further enquiries, particularly with reference to his mobile phone.

The phone when analysed had text messages which could have been interpreted as relating to drugs.

The defendant was charged with possession, supply, and intent to supply cocaine,  the amount found being about three grammes.  The ambiguous texts and the admission to past supply (sharing) gave the prosecution sufficient evidence to charge him with intent to supply, and the case went to the Crown Court.

At the Plea and Case Management hearing in Cardiff Crown court on 4th January 2010 defence counsel was successful in persuading the prosecuting barrister to accept a not guilty plea to the intent to supply charge. At the sentencing hearing the judge remarked that he had looked at the texts in this case and, had it not been for the not guilty plea having been accepted, he might well have sent the defendant to prison for a period of three years. Without that count however, the judge sentenced him to a high level Supervision Order and 200 hours of unpaid work, together with court costs.

MORAL – Don’t be so anxious to get away quickly from the police station that you go into interview unprepared and unrepresented – this defendant was very fortunate in the fact that his barrister was able to persuade the prosecutor to accept the not guilty plea.

He was charged with production of over 500 cannabis plants, and taken to Carmarthen Magistrates Court on 23rd December where he pleaded guilty. The Magistrates sentenced him to a three month Referral Order and expressed their concern that there was no agency to refer him to for assistance and accommodation.

However, he did receive immediate compassionate assistance albeit not from any official agency, and so was not put out onto the streets just before Christmas with nowhere to go.

The circumstances were that our client  was insured to drive his own tractor, and he used his own tractor to do some work on a friend’s farm to help him out. On one occasion however, the friend offered him the use of a larger tractor which was more suitable for carrying some goods down the road. Both parties believed he was covered by the farm insurance, but unfortunately this belief was incorrect.

This was a young driver of 17 years old and he had recently enrolled on a college course in agricultural engineering, and to lose his licence would have meant he could not drive the machinery that he was training on at  college.

When the case came to court we made detailed representations on his behalf to the prosecutor who decided to offer no evidence and withdrew the summons for no insurance, much to the client’s relief and delight.

On the day of her arrest she  had driven to her local shop and purchased alcohol, and on arriving home she had consumed a significant amount of cider and wine.

On receiving reports of apparantly drunken behaviour in the shop, and a report that she had been seen drinking in the car, the police attended at her home and arrested the defendant on suspicion of driving whilst unfit. On being tested the lower reading on the Lion Intoximeter was 138 mcg in 100 ml of breath.

In interview at the police station the defendant explained that she had consumed the alcohol on returning home, and not before, or whilst driving her car.  She may have walked unsteadily in the shop as she had a bad back and a limp. She drank an energy drink in the car, not an alcoholic drink. She had not eaten since the previous day, and she felt that this might have affected the readings of her breath and made them higher than might have been expected.

The case was listed for trial on 25th September. The prosecution applied on the day for the charge to be amended to Drink Driving, but we opposed this on her behalf as the case would need to be adjourned in order for us to obtain expert evidence on back calculation.

The magistrates refused to adjourn the case, and after hearing evidence from the police and the defendant, she was acquitted of driving while unfit.

He was charged on 16th August with a minor offence of breaching an Order under Section 12 of the Public Order Act which is designed to prevent persons as part of a public procession entering a designated area. The case is yet to be decided by the Merthyr Magistrates.

The police did not want Mr Jones on his release from the police station to return to the camp at Ffos y Fan, nor indeed to attend any other Climate Camps, and so they drew up bail conditions to that effect.

Mr Jones, having been charged , explained to the police that he could not and would not accept the conditions not to enter Merthyr County, and not to attend any Climate Camps, and so the police decided to keep him in custody and let the Magistrates set the bail conditions, if any.

The following day Kate Williams from our office represented Mr Jones at Merthyr Magistrates Court. She argued that the condition not to enter Merthyr County was unneccessary as the camp at Ffos y Fan had ended, and that the condition not to attend any Climate Camp in the UK was ill – defined, disproportionate and unenforceable. The Magistrates agreed, and Mr Jones, who had entered a Not Guilty plea, was given unconditional bail until the pre-trial review hearing in September.

Moral – Don’t accept wide and ill-defined Police bail conditions!

The case went to trial at Llanelli Magistrates Court on 20th May 2009. We were able to produce evidence to show that the letters were reasonable responses to requests made by his ex-wife, and that none of the calls he had made were capable of constituting harassment.

On the day the trial was due to be heard, we produced convincing evidence that the client’s ex-wife had herself behaved unreasonably, and on that basis the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the trial.

The Magistrates would in these circumstances usually impose six points on the licence but,after his guilty plea ,we submitted to the Court that he was a young man of previous good character and that, as he was self-employed, the loss of his licence would lead to the loss of his employment as it involved driving.

The Magistrates exercised their discretion to impose only five points and a fine, and so the defendant kept his licence, and his job.