Anonymous. 3rd February 2012. is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Anonymous. 20th January 2012 is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Ken Clarke has proposed a massive overhaul to the length of time it takes for a criminal conviction to become ‘spent’. A spent conviction means that whilst it will always stay on your criminal record, (in most cases) you no longer have to declare it. So, for example, once your conviction has become spent, if you are asked by a future employer whether or not you have any convictions, you can quite properly say ‘no’. Employers are not allowed to refuse you employment based upon a spent conviction.

Some jobs however do require an enhanced criminal record check and if for example, you are applying for a job at a school or a hospital you will be asked about both your current and spent convictions and if asked specifically about spent convictions, you must answer truthfully.

For most offences, the new proposals reduce the length of time it will take for your conviction to become spent considerably and for anyone who has a criminal conviction and is trying to put that conviction behind them and make a fresh start, this is fantastic news. There will undoubtably be public outcry against the perceived risks that this will pose for society as a whole but the reality is – the more serious the crime, the longer sentence you will receive for it and the longer it will take to become spent. Some offences will never become spent.

The length of time (if ever) it takes for your convictions to become spent is currently dictated by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under both the existing and the proposed system, the length of time it takes for your conviction to become spent (if at all) is based upon the length of sentence that you received for it.

Under the current law, the length of time it will take for your conviction to become spent is (based on an adult offender):

• A custodial sentence of 2.5 years or more – it will never be spent
• A custodial sentence of between 6 – 30 months – 10 years
• A custodial sentence of less than 6 months – 7 years
• A community sentence – 5 years

Under the proposed changes:

• A custodial sentence of 4 years or more – it will never be spent
• A custodial sentence of between 2.5 – 4 years – 7 years
• A custodial sentence of between 6 – 30 months - 4 years
• A custodial sentence of less than 6 months - 2 years
• A community sentence - 1 year

The current news coverage about this can be viewed here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16857388

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9057643/Hundreds-of-thousands-of-criminals-to-get-clean-slate-in-law-change.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53aa871a-4dcb-11e1-a66e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lIdNL4c9

Criminal convictions to become spent – quicker. is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

What we are: www.thejusticegap.com is an online magazine about the law aimed at ordinary people (as opposed to lawyers, businesses etc).

We are about the law as it relates to you.
We are about journalism and, in particular, shining a light on those parts of the justice system that don’t often see the light of day in the mainstream media.
We are interested in the broad sweep of the law: human rights, the criminal justice system, family, employment through to consumer issues. In other words, all aspects of the law that relate to you in your day-to-day life.
We are editorially independent.
We aim to promote ‘access to justice’ – in other words, we want to improve the ability of people to enforce legitimately held rights. To that end, we want to develop the site as a resource of useful and interesting information about legal rights under the Advice Guide. It’s a long-term project. We launched on October 6th 2011.

Why ‘the Justice Gap’: We explain what the Justice Gap means at the end of this page.

It is a recognition that the system isn’t working. That many people struggle to secure ‘access to justice’ – not just vulnerable parts of the community and those without money but an increasingly large section of the community. That’s where we are coming from.

What we are not: For a start, we are not lawyers.

We are not here to promote the interests of lawyers. We hope this site represents a positive contribution to promoting ‘access to justice’. These are two different things.
This is not a lawyers’ discussion group. We will run articles and blogs by lawyers and professionals involved with the law; and we will run articles and blogs by people who are neither but who have views on the effectiveness or otherwise of our legal system. Any contributions will be run at the editor’s discretion. They must be broadly in sympathy with what we are about, factually accurate (obviously…) and they must not land the editor in the libel courts (please…).
We do not provide legal advice. Sorry. We don’t claim to have either the right skills or resources to assist people with their individual legal actions. We don’t engage in correspondence about individual cases.
Our advice guide is not a substitute for legal advice (as is explained in our terms and conditions) but it is to illuminate legal issues.

Who is behind the Justice Gap: The site is run by Jon Robins (jon@thejusticegap.com, on Twitter as @JusticeGap).  Jon is a journalist and has written about the law, justice and related issues for the national papers and for the specialist press for 15 years. He is not a lawyer. Jon did once train to be a lawyer – but it didn’t work out. Jon is editor.

Jon is supported by Kim Evans (kim@thejusticegap.com; on Twitter as @LifeInCustody) who is commissioning editor. Kim has spent 31 years working at the sharp end of the criminal justice system – the last ten years in the cells of East Sussex police stations defending people in custody and 15 years as an officer with the Metropolitan Police before that.

We are very grateful for the support of a team of regular bloggers; the experts who have very generously written and researched sections of the advice guide; and the many people who have supported the Justice Gap series. They are listed here.

Michael Mansfield QC explains the Justice Gap:

‘The ‘Justice Gap’ refers to the increasing section of the public too poor to afford a lawyer and not poor enough to qualify for legal aid. At the heart of any notion of a decent society is not only that we have rights and protections under the law but that we can enforce those rights and rely upon those protections if needed.’

Guardian Legal Network: The Justice Gap is part of the Guardian Legal Network which ‘brings together the best blogs and sites that cover legal affairs and developments from around the world. The network connects sites that provide high-quality news, comment, analysis, blogs and multimedia’.

The Justice Gap is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Anon. 23rd December 2011 is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Mr J.G 29th December 2011 is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

The most serious offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is Being an owner/person in charge of  a dog which on a specified date, was dangerously out of control in a public place [... and injured a person]. The current sentencing range for this offence is between a financial penalty and a six month custodial sentence where no injury was caused, or a financial penalty and a two-year custodial sentence for the aggravated offence where injury is caused.

If you are the owner of the dog or the person in charge of it at the time it becomes ‘dangerously out of control’ then you will be guilty of the offence. This is a strict liability offence which means in simple terms – if the dog becomes dangerously out of control and you either own the dog or are in charge of it at the time – you are guilty.

In law a dog is defined as dangerously out of control where there are reasonable grounds to fear that the dog will injure someone (whether or not it actually does). This can apply even where your dog is on a lead and whilst on a lead – it then bites someone.

A pubic place is defined as any street, road or other place to which the public has access – including the common parts of private dwellings.

If you are convicted of this offence the court could:

1. Send you to prison
2. Sentence you to a community penalty such as unpaid work
3. Oder that you pay a financial penalty
4. Order the destruction of your dog
5. Order you to keep your dog under proper control in the future
6. Specify measures for keeping the dog under control, for example; a muzzle
7. Disqualify you from owning a dog for a specified period
8. Order you to pay compensation to the victim

Currently there is no sentence guideline for this offence and the proposed consultation aims to bring consistency in sentence. Within the consultation, the suggested starting point for this offence where injury is caused is a community penalty with a custodial sentence reserved for the most serious offenders.

If you wish to read or take part in the consultation, please click here

If you wish to read the BBC news coverage about this then please click here

Dangerous dogs – sentence guideline consultation is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

We represented Mr R as duty solicitor at Brighton Police station where he was arrested upon an allegation of a sexual offence. Following his interview he was released on police bail to return to Brighton police station. His case was discontinued before the date he was due to return to the police station.

If you or a member of your family have been accused of a sexual offence and need legal advice but are too embarrassed to seek it because of the circumstances of your case, don’t be. We understand that allegations of this nature are extremely sensitive and we will always treat you and your case professionally and will ease you through the process as painlessly as possible. We are Criminal defence solicitors based in Brighton and have vast experience in cases such as these.

If you would like to contact us please telephone us on 01273 692020 or e-mail us at law@mulrooneycraghill.com

If you would like to read Mr R’s testimonial please click here

Solicitors. Brighton is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Mr R 9th November 2011 is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill

Sussex police have now launched their Christmas purge against drink drivers. From now until the new year the police will be actively promoting their anti-drink and drug driving message throughout Sussex and will not only be actively seeking out drink drivers themselves but also encouraging others to report anyone they suspect of doing so either via their website, emergency number or via a designated text message service.

If you or a member of your family have been arrested for drink driving and want to find out more about the law, please read our factsheet here.

Don’t forget that failing to provide a specimen may also amount to a criminal offence and if you want to learn more please read here

If you want to read the press release from Sussex police, please read here

Sussex police drink drive campaign is a post from: Mulrooney Craghill