Jonathan Black and James Skelsey acting as Solicitor/Advocates represented a mother/father and son charged with money laundering, possession with intent to supply controlled drugs and possession of a CS gas canister after cash and drugs were found at their home address.
Not guilty pleas were entered and the case was listed for trial. However, after negotiation the Crown were persuaded to not proceed with any offences involving the mother; accepted a plea to simple possession of controlled drugs despite the presence of drugs in different locations and, scales and self sealing bags and the cash; and the Crown accepted a plea from the father for an offence of possession of CS gas canister and did not proceed with any other offences against him.
The son received a conditional discharge and the father a four month prison sentence suspended for 15 months.
CLIENT AVOIDS CUSTODY
Jim Skelsey represented a client as Solicitor/Advocate who pleaded guilty to three offences of robbery. They were all street robberies and aggravating features included the fact that the offences were committed in a group; the victim’s were aged between 10 – 14 years of age; direct threats were made to them and it was suggested to the victims that one of the offenders was carrying a knife.
The sentencing guidelines indicated an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate with a range of up to three years. However, after hearing the plea of mitigation the Judge was persuaded to impose a suspended prison sentence of nine months.
CLIENT GETS BAIL IN ROBBERY CASE
Jim Skelsey represented a client who was said to be one of ten offenders who were poised to rob a warehouse of electrical equipment worth up to approximately one million pounds before being intercepted by members of the Flying Squad who were waiting for them.
Offenders were all wearing dark clothing, wigs or balaclavas, baseball caps, sunglasses, gloves and were in possession of walkie talkie’s and a CS gas canister. We were able to secure our client bail in these proceedings whilst all other defendants have been remanded in custody.
WHAT’S THAT SMELL?
Jim Skelsey represented a mother in her 40’s at the Crown Court who was accused of allowing her premises to be used for the cultivation of cannabis. The client lived with her son in a three bedroom flat. All the bedrooms were on the top floor and one of them had been converted into a cannabis factory.
A succession of police officers spoke about the overwhelming smell as they entered the premise and one of the police officers stated that he was able to smell cannabis of a distance of 25 metres away!
Our client’s case was that she had no knowledge of the existence of a cannabis factory. The room in question was not been used and she had no need to enter it. She did occasionally smell cannabis but knew that her son was intensive and habitual consumer of cannabis and had no reason to believe or suspect the presence of a cannabis factory. Our client was acquitted after a three day trial.
Contact us if you have been arrested on suspicion of the supply of cannabis
SCHOOL TEACHER ACQUITTED OF SEXUAL OFFENCES
A school teacher was accused of having underage sex with an ex-pupil weeks after she had left school. Our client’s case was that he accepted having a sexual relationship with the ex-pupil but only after she had turned 16 years of age.
The Crown’s case was that the sexual activity took place one week before the complainant turned 16 although it was not disputed that the complainant not only consented to the sexual activity but in fact initiated it.
Representations were made that it was not in the public interest to proceed bearing in mind the circumstances of the case.
Neena Crinnion of 3 Temple Gardens was instructed by James Skelsey from this office. The matter proceeded to trial which had a number of twists and turns which led to three jurys being discharged. The Crown indicated that they would seek a re-trial.
Further representations were made by James Skelsey that the Crown had failed to apply “the Code for Crown Prosecutors” correctly and it was clearly not in the public interest to proceed with the case. It was argued that the complainant could in no way be described as a victim, in fact not only a complainant, but simply a prosecution witness who was reluctant to come to court. The defendant who was of good character had been suspended from his employment for a 15 month period and his life was on hold.
The Crown eventually agreed to offer no evidence and a formal not guilty verdict was recorded.
Despite the acquittal, our client was dismissed from his employment and is no longer able to work as a teacher.