09/08/18
Successful Result | Non-Molestation Order | Kangs Criminal Defence Solicitors
Share
Kangs Solicitors have recently successfully defended our client before Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court who was charged with breaching a Non-Molestation Order issued at the Family Court.
Sukhdip Randhawa of Kangs Solicitors, who represented the client reports.
The Circumstances | Kangs Non-Molestation Order Solicitors
- Our client was subject to a Non–Molestation Order containing conditions not to communicate with his estranged wife in any way, save through solicitors, except in the event of an emergency involving their son.
- The Prosecution maintained that admissions had been made by our client in interview and, accordingly, he had been charged and bailed to Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court.
- Our client advised us that he thought he had breached his Order as there had been contact between himself and his estranged wife.
Defence Preparation | Kangs Criminal Defence Team
- Upon taking detailed instructions it became apparent that our client had indeed had contact with his estranged wife but the meeting had been instigated by her expressing her desire to return to the former matrimonial home.
- at court we advised the Magistrates that the contact had been reasonable and that our client would plead ‘not guilty’.
- our detailed examination of all material revealed the complaint was made to the police:
- some six days after the contact
- at a time when their respective family solicitors were in communication
- the complaint had been reported ‘on the advice of her Solicitor’.
- witness statements were taken confirming that the contact had been instigated by the estranged wife
- we made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service that they review the casegiven that the evidence was to the effect that the complaint had only been made upon advice of the estranged wife’s solicitor as a means to support her claims and that we considered it very unlikely that they would be able to prove their case.
Successful Outcome | Kangs Criminal Trial Solicitors
Not Guilty Verdict
- as our submissions were not accepted it was necessary to prepare for Trial.
- on the day of trial, the Case was reviewed by the Crown Prosecutor and our submissions accepted, with the result that:
the Prosecution offered no evidence and the case against our client was dismissed with a ‘not guilty’ verdict being returned by the Judge.
Recovery of Costs
- as our client had paid our fees privately, an application was made that a Defence Costs Order should be granted by the court enabling our client to be refunded his outlay.
- the Judge confirmed that an order should be made with the result that our client is likely to recoup the vast majority of the fees paid by him.
Naturally, our client was delighted with the result obtained for him by Kangs Solicitors.
How Can We Help? | Kangs Non- Molestation Defence Solicitors
Please feel free to contact our team through the following:
Sukhdip Randhawa
srandhawa@kangssolicitors.co.uk
0121 449 9888 | 020 7936 6396 | 07989 521 210
Amandeep Murria
amurria@kangssolicitors.co.uk
0121 449 9888 | 07989 521 210
New Sentencing Guidelines (‘the New Guidelines’), which come into effect on 1st January 2020, have been issued covering adults convicted of Public Order Offences. John Veale of Kangs Solicitors comments upon the changes. Background | Kangs Sentencing Advisory Team In August 2008, the Sentencing Guidelines Council published Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines in respect of such […]
01/11/19
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down an important Judgement protecting legal professional privilege (‘LPP’). Helen Holder of Kangs Solicitors explains the nature of LPP. What is Legal Professional Privilege? | Kangs Criminal Law Advisory Team LPP protects all communications between professional legal advisors and their clients from being disclosed without each individual client’s […]
31/10/19
A cut-throat defence arises where, during criminal proceedings, a defendant gives evidence on his own behalf and which is not only likely to strengthen the prosecution case but is designed to damage a co-defendant’s case to the extent that it may go as far as blaming the co-defendant whilst endeavouring to exonerate himself. John Veale […]
30/10/19
