February Results

February has seen lots of successful results for many of our clients. These have included the following:

PV – Mr V was summoned to appear before Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court by Transport for London (TfL) for an allegation of misusing a freedom pass on the London Underground. This included at least eight separate uses of an elderly relatives freedom pass. After a successful intervention by Lansbury Worthington, TfL were persuaded to accept an out of court settlement to avoid a court appearance and conviction. Mr V agreed to compensate TfL for the eight misuses and pay their costs in investigating the matter, and in doing so avoided any conviction on his criminal record.

PR – Mr R was written to by the Disclosure & Barring Service confirming that they were considering entering his name on the Adult & Children’s Barred Lists to prohibit him from working in regulated activities involving vulnerable adults and children. This was following a police caution Mr R had received in 2001 (over fourteen years earlier).

Mr R was employed as a taxi driver and had his name been entered on either of these barred lists then he would have lost that employment. Fortunately, Mr R instructed Lansbury Worthington’s Data Protection & Criminal Records Team to prepare representations against the inclusion of his name on these lists. The representations were thorough and included character statements and references. Within ten days of receiving our representations, the Disclosure & Barring Service confirmed that Mr R’s name would not be included on either of these lists.

JA – Miss A was being prosecuted for Possession with Intent to Supply Class A & B Drugs. Her case was before the Crown Court at Kingston and she was represented in these proceedings by Naomi Alcendor and Ben Holden. This case was complicated by the fact that Miss A had psychiatric health problems that effectively meant she would struggle to understand the court proceedings, or even event a plea. After securing several mental health assessments from a reputable court psychiatrist, Naomi was able to forcefully persuade the prosecution that to continue the prosecution was neither in the public interest nor evidentially sufficient. The case was subsequently discontinued by the prosecution (who offered ‘no evidence’) and a verdict of not guilty was recorded on the court file.