Criminal Law - Advice

[Guest]

Hello,*

My question is in two part; I have been charged with failing to comply with a condition which requires me to attend a Police station on a yearly basis to confirm my details (such as address and passport number).*

Before being charged, I refused a 'simple caution' out of principle as I do not believe I am guilty. The law states I'm not guilty if I have a 'reasonable excuse' - I believe my depression and the the fact the specific date that I need to attend wasn't made clear constitutes a reasonable excuse.*

My two questions are:

1) Since it's a triable either way offence, is it better to keep the case in the magistrates court or chose the crown court since I think a jury may be more sympathetic 2) Can I reference tax tribunal case law in a criminal trial? In*Wedgwood v HMRC*(TCO 4018) it was ruled that depression is a 'reasonable excuse' for failing to comply with tax deadlines.*

Many thanks in advance.*

[R0b]

History suggests that you have a better chance of acquittal when tried by your peers whereas Magistrates tend to be 'case hardened' i.e. they've heard it all before and may be more likely to find you guilty. Having said that, if being found guilty in the Crown you may be liable to a more severe punishment than in a Magistrates' Court.

Yes you can reference any case you like as long as it is relevant even if in a different court setting. However, just a small suggestion: whilst you have found a specific case that could be used as a reference point to back up your position of depression being a reasonable excuse, have you considered looking for case law where mental health generally may be a reasonable excuse or good reason for not complying - I'm not necessarily saying it has to be a tax case, it could be a civil case and the higher the court that makes the decision, the more persuasive it might be.

For example, a Court of Appeal criminal case (R v Lennard 1973) said that, in relation to a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath specimen, "no excuse can be adjudged a reasonable one unless the person from whom the specimen is required is physically or mentally unable to provide it or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health."

Following the above case, you can then use the tax case as a further way to argue that it has been accepted depression is considered a reasonable excuse. Of course the burden of proof will be on you to prove that your depression prevented you from attending. At the very least you'll probably need a GP letter or equivalent as a starting point - simply saying you have depression is unlikely to be sufficient.*

[jaguarsuk]

If you are considering asking for the case to be tried in Crown Court, if you qualify for it, then it might be worthwhile you looking for a Legal Aid Solicitor who can represent you at the plea and directions hearing, but also then contact a Barrister for the Crown Court case.

[daniellondon]

History suggests that you have a better chance of acquittal when tried by your peers whereas Magistrates tend to be 'case hardened' i.e. they've heard it all before and may be more likely to find you guilty. Having said that, if being found guilty in the Crown you may be liable to a more severe punishment than in a Magistrates' Court.

Yes you can reference any case you like as long as it is relevant even if in a different court setting. However, just a small suggestion: whilst you have found a specific case that could be used as a reference point to back up your position of depression being a reasonable excuse, have you considered looking for case law where mental health generally may be a reasonable excuse or good reason for not complying - I'm not necessarily saying it has to be a tax case, it could be a civil case and the higher the court that makes the decision, the more persuasive it might be.

For example, a Court of Appeal criminal case (R v Lennard 1973) said that, in relation to a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath specimen, "no excuse can be adjudged a reasonable one unless the person from whom the specimen is required is physically or mentally unable to provide it or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health."

Following the above case, you can then use the tax case as a further way to argue that it has been accepted depression is considered a reasonable excuse. Of course the burden of proof will be on you to prove that your depression prevented you from attending. At the very least you'll probably need a GP letter or equivalent as a starting point - simply saying you have depression is unlikely to be sufficient.

Thank you for your response - I am the original poster but have now registered an account.


I can definitely evidence depression as being debilitating to my daily life. I even quit my job recently due to being unable to concentrate and forgetting basic things. Another thing, wouldn't the Police / Home Office have to provide 'reasonable adjustments' to me under the equalities act? Since this requirement is a proactive one, then surely if they are aware I have depression (which they are) they SHOULD at the very least send me a reminder letter.

Apart from depression, another part of my defence relies upon the fact that it is only my second year being subject to these requirements and during the first year; I'm nearly 100% convinced that the Police officer attended my house to complete this 'Periodic Notification' with me. This then set a false precedent since, had I been required to attend during the first year, I would have been more likely to attend during this second year. The officer even admitted off the record that he wanted to but had forgotten to remind me. On a side note, I'm also unsure where they plucked the exact date from for my second notification - exactly a calendar year before they claim I was due to submit this notification, I have photographic evidence that I was doing something else that day.

Anyway, I'm hesitant to instruct a barrister since I feel my original case, which resulted in these requirements, was very badly handled and the prosecution just stepped all over my barrister.

In the meantime, if anybody has any other case law that may be relevant that I look forward to hearing it - thanks again.

[islandgirl]

As a mag (case hardened or not) we accept appropriate reasons for not complying with orders. If the case came before me I would certainly expect some medical proof of depression and good firm reasons why you were unable to comply. you would also need to explain why the date was not made clear to you. Trials in my area are being listed in 2023 so this will not be resolved quickly - probably even longer delays in Crown Court. Whichever court you choose I would get good legal representation.

[dslippy]

Get good legal advice and follow it.
A fitrst tier tribunal decision will not be worth much.
How severe is the depression, and what evidence an you bring forward.
I foresee a criminal court being difficult to persusde on this. Half their clients ared depressed.

[des8]

This thread is over 2.7 years old

[islandgirl]

thank you Des8 just realized it was resurrected by a spammer. I wonder what happened in the end?

[DE DOGS]

Your Honour Transport him to Australia for 20 years, that should help with his problems.

[islandgirl]

Genuine problems are always taken seriously in court and appropriate decisions taken - excuses and attempts to explain away criminal behaviour with unsubstantiated stories are frowned upon. I am sure "their honours" feel very much the same way!