Elliott Moulster, In-house Court Advocate, acted for LD who faced one allegation at the Magistrates Court concerning the possession of a bladed article. LD was alleged to have taken a bladed article from his home address to confront individuals that had assaulted members of his family. Fortunately, no such confrontation ultimately took place but LD was ultimately captured of CCTV with possession of the bladed article.
Possession of a bladed article in a public place is an offence which usually comes with a starting point of six months imprisonment. This tough starting point is undoubtedly linked to the significant problems that society as a whole faces when it comes to knife crime. Notwithstanding this starting point, Elliott was able to convince the Court to sentence LD to a conditional discharge. This means that LD will not be punished for the offence unless he commits another offence within a set period of time.
At first glance, one would be fair to question whether such a sentence, for such a serious offence, could be considered to be unduly lenient. That said, once the circumstances of this offence are explored further, such a conclusion is less certain. The thrust of Elliott’s (ultimately successful) argument was that there had been a two-year delay in Prosecuting LD who was a youth of good character at the time of the offence.
This case is therefore a class example of how, by advancing the correct advocacy at a Sentencing Hearing, a Court can be persuaded to impose a sentence beyond the usual starting point.
Further reading:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-knife-crime-practical-guidance
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/17/part/2