Whilst the issues of bail and case outcome are of critical importance to clients (and will be subject of forthcoming blogs). The primary issue facing criminal defence solicitors when instructed by a client charged with a criminal offence is what plea or pleas should be entered and when those pleas should be entered.
The tactical awareness of a criminal defence practitioner in advising a client not only what pleas should be entered but at what stage of the case can be critical for the eventual outcome, or may in some cases be the difference as to whether a client receives a custodial sentence or not.
In a recent case where Miles Herman was instructed by a client charged with drug offences, including possession with intent to supply class A drugs, the advice in terms of plea and the basis of that plea was central to securing the best possible outcome for the client and resulted in a non-custodial sentence being imposed.
In the present case, the client, following an 18-month investigation, had been charged with possession with intent to supply class A drugs, having been caught in a hired car allegedly delivering drugs to various destinations as a direct supplier.
The prosecution served evidence supportive of their case, and it was clear that at some stage the client would need to enter a plea of guilty, albeit on a basis prepared by this firm.
If clients enter a plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court would ordinarily receive credit of 33%. If that plea is entered at the first hearing in the Crown Court, credit can be reduced to 25% if that plea is entered at the first hearing, and if a plea of guilty is entered thereafter, the percentage credit is gradually reduced.
However, what percentage of credit is applied is not an exact science and in each case, a solicitor should take particular care in advising as at what stage a plea should be entered and in this case, it would not have been in the client’s interest to plead guilty at the Magistrates’ Court on a full facts basis when critical evidence relating to telecommunications and the digital evidence had not been served or relied upon.
When the Prosecution served their case in the Crown Court, it became apparent that a full forensic download with the client’s mobile communication had not been undertaken and may, if directed by the court would have taken many months to have been completed.
It was at that point that the client received advice from Miles Herman that a plea of guilty should be entered on the basis that he acted in a lesser role.
The reasoning was that, the evidence as had been served was at its lowest point and that the prosecution would not be able to rely upon telecommunications evidence to contradict the client’s basis, and the court would not certainly adjourn the case for several months to enable this evidence to be obtained.
Of course, every case depends upon its own facts and cases vary according to the nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the charges.
However, by taking a clear tactical approach at an early can reap benefits for clients and as in this case, the timing of the plea was correct, the basis of the plea was correct, and due to these circumstances, the court was able to impose a non-custodial sentence without conditions being imposed.
This case study is an example of the importance of receiving correct and timely advice in terms of a plea from a solicitor, whether that be at the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court.
Contact our Expert Criminal Defence Solicitors
If you are facing any charge and require advice on a plea at any stage, and/or throughout the case, please contact Miles Herman or the criminal team at Lewis Nedas Law by calling 020 7387 2032 or alternatively via our online enquiry form.