News

As many of you will know Cheltenham week is underway but Licence holders and Designated Premises Supervisors (DPS) should be careful that they do not facilitate betting on licensed premises.

If a Licence Holder or DPS accepts a bet or facilitates a bet simply by allowing a customer to use their internet or telephone account they are committing an offence and could risk prosecution and up to 51 weeks imprisonment ( in reality 6 months) and/ or a fine up to £5000 as well as a review of their licence.

There is nothing to stop a Licence Holder allowing customers to watch Horse Racing on Televisions in the pub or indeed to supply betting slips as long as these are not taken to the Bookmakers by any employee of the Pub or Club.

If you have any questions in relation to betting on licensed premises please contact our Mr Hobbs of our Licensing Department.

Tajul Islam recently represented JB, a client from Bangladesh in a complex entry clearance application to the UK for settlement under Paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules. JB was below the age of 65 but over the age of 18 at the time of her application and therefore she was required to show that her circumstances were ‘most exceptional and compassionate’ in her country to be able to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

In light of JB’s individual circumstances as presented including the fact that the relevant immigration rules JB was required to satisfy were particularly onerous, Tajul approached the case as a challenging task as most appeals fail on this ground due to the wording of the relevant Rule and the interpretation that Immigration Judges sometimes place on Paragraph 317. The fact that all of JB’s revious applications and appeals had failed prior to the present decision under appeal being taken, seemingly presented as a daunting task which Tajul with vigour was however determined to approach with a view to assisting JB resolve positively.

After effective examination, Tajul was also of the view that since JB’s mother was a British citizen through her father, JB could have applied for registration to become a British citizen when she was below the age of 18 and if the application for registration as a British citizen had been made while she was below the age of 18, she would have been here as a British citizen.

It was also submitted among other matters that the unfairness caused to JB should not be attributed to her and that she in fact deserved entry under compassionate and human rights grounds.

The appeal was allowed not under the Immigration Rules but under Article 8 and on compassionate grounds. JB will now receive entry clearance to join her mother in the UK.

In this case, our client faced a charge of production of cannabis when his house was searched and the Police seized 60 cannabis plants and equipment used to assist in the production of cannabis. Our client went into interview without a solicitor and admitted the offence on tape. He put forward various mitigating circumstances from the outset but he was charged with producing a Controlled Drug of Class B, namely, Cannabis and Possession with Intent to Supply Class B.

Mr Parminder Matharu represented our client at Luton Magistrates Court. Mr Matharu spoke with the Prosecution at length and was able to eventually negotiate a guilty plea to the production of the drugs if the Prosecution dropped the intent to supply charge. The prosecution agreed but the Magistrates’ decided that their sentencing power was not sufficient and passed the case to the Crown Court for a sentence to be passed.

Mr Derek Johashen represented our client at Luton Crown Court for his sentencing hearing. For the production of 60 cannabis plants and supply of cannabis our client could have been facing up to 14 years imprisonment. He mitigated on our client’s behalf and the Judge sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months. Our client was able to leave court that day.

Our client faced an allegation of s18 GBH when a fight broke out outside Saints and Sinners Nightclub in August 2012. The First Law Partnership represented him from the Police Station stage right through to his trial at Luton Crown Court.

In police interview, our client identified himself on CCTV however denied assaulting the injured party. Although the injured party could not identify our client himself, the main witness claimed he saw our client kick the injured party and cause the serious injuries.

Our in house Barrister, Mr Paul Orton represented our client at his 4 day trial. He vigorously cross-examined the main witness who, despite earlier testimony, eventually confirmed he could not be sure that it was our client who was the male who caused the injuries.

After the jury heard the witness’s evidence they took just over an hour to deliver a unanimous not guilty verdict. The prosecution were dumbstruck and our client was cleared of the charges he faced.