Emmersons offer to help Armed Forces Personnel

Share |

Are you aware that 30^th June 2012 is Armed Forces Day?  This is the day which has been targeted to raise awareness of the work undertaken by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces and the excellent job that they do. It is a great opportunity for members of the public to show their support for our troops. 

Emmersons Solicitors has always been a great supporter of our Armed Forces and since they opened for business 14 years ago have always strived to do all that they can to help service personnel and their families.  They often carry out work on a pro bono basis for service personnel who are unable to afford to pay their legal fees. “We often assist soldiers suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I have dealt with some very young soldiers who have come into contact with the court system because they have lost control as a direct result of things they have witnessed in such places as Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan” says Michael Robinson, partner in the firm. 

When Emmersons opened their second office in Gosforth they took the opportunity to raise funds for SSAFA Forces Help . “Our launch evening for our Gosforth office was a great opportunity to bring together the SSAFA volunteers from the North East and local businesses. The volunteers give up a great deal of time to help existing and retired armed forces personnel. They are always looking for extra volunteers to help them” says Jacqueline Emmerson.

Emmersons connection with the Armed Forces continued with the appointment of Louise Flynn as a Family Law Solicitor. Louise was previously based at a firm at Catterick Garrison in North Yorkshire.  Working in the Garrison, she gained a wealth of experience dealing with Armed Forces divorces and dissolutions.  Through her experience she learned that the divorce rate in the forces appears to be higher than in civilian life.  There are several factors that impact on an armed forces divorce in a unique way.  Forces pensions and terminal grants are taken into account when dealing with the divorce, especially if the client is close to receiving the payments.  Housing needs for the family and contact arrangements tend to be at the forefront. 

“On this Armed Forces Day we will be thinking of the impact that being in the armed forces has on family life. We at Emmersons are supporting our forces. If any forces personnel require legal assistance during the next two weeks they should contact us to see if we can offer them free help” says Senior Partner  Jacqueline Emmerson who is also Honorary Solicitor for SSAFA Forces Help in the North East of England .

 Emmersons Solicitors are based at 52 John Street, Sunderland SR1 1QN and 145 High Street Gosforth NE3 1HA. For further information contact Jacqueline Emmerson on 0191 2846989, Michael Robinson on 0191 5676667 or e mail amrobinson@emmersons-solicitors.co.uk

Co-Operative Funeral Services on Channel 4's Despatches

Share |

As a solicitor dealing with probate work I have often been shocked when I see funeral bills from the Co-op. When compared to independant funeral directors they seem to be nearly double the price. All was explained when I watched Despatches last night. Their undercover reporter showed the public the hardline selling tactics employed by the Co-op.

This links to the fact that some families who were using Co-operative funeral services were hararrssed by the Co-op into using their legal teams for the probate work. I have heard about one family who were contacted four times in the two weeks after the death of their relative. The calls were to pursuade them that they should use Co-operative legal services. This is shocking behaviour.

 My advice would be to use your local funeral director. In Newcastle upon Tyne I have had dealings with a very nice firm in Wideopen called Duckworth Funeral Directors. They were nearly half the price of the Co-Op. I am not on commission I just feel strongly that people ought to be aware of what is going on.

 Jacqueline Emmerson

Emmersons Solicitors secures Law Society's Conveyancing quality mark

Share |

Emmersons Solicitors with offices in John Street Sunderland and High Street, Gosforth has secured membership to the Law Society's Conveyancing Quality Scheme - the mark of excellence for the home buying process.

Emmersons Solicitors underwent rigorous assessment by the Law Society in order to secure CQS status, which marks the firm out as meeting high standards in the residential conveyancing process.

Law Society President John Wotton said that the Law Society introduced CQS to promote high standards in the home buying process.

“CQS improves efficiency with common, consistent standards and service levels and enables consumers to recognise practices that provide a quality residential conveyancing service.

"Buying a home is one of the largest purchases anyone will make in their lifetime, so it is essential that it is done to the highest standard by a solicitor. There are many different conveyancing service providers out there, making it difficult for home buyers to identify those which can ensure a safe and efficient level of service.”

Michael Robinson says: "Emmersons Solicitors is delighted to have secured CQS status. It is recognition of the high standards we provide to our residential property clients and is a signal to future home buyers of the excellent service level we provide at what is often a stressful time for many people.

“The award of CQS status to us reflects the dedication with which our Property Law Team work towards making the client’s journey through the property maze as easy and stress free as possible.  

“The overall beneficiaries will be clients who use Emmersons Solicitors when buying a home. They will receive a reliable, efficient, cost effective service as recognised by the CQS standard."

The scheme requires practices to undergo a strict assessment, compulsory training, self reporting, random audits and annual reviews in order to maintain CQS status. It is open only to members of the Law Society who meet the demanding standards set by the scheme and has the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, Legal Ombudsman and the Association of British Insurers.

For more information on the Law Society's Conveyancing Quality Scheme visit www.lawsociety.org.uk/cqs

Having spent some time away from the office, what joy it is to return!

Share |


We went to London to see the Queen. Actually only my wife got to see her and the rest of the Royal Family on their "barge" as it floated down the Thames. We all saw Gloriana and the rest of the small boats. Next day we visited the Thames again and saw the tall ships at Tower Bridge and watched that Bridge open and close as ships passed through.

First day back had a long round trip to Hull to meet a client who has a Parole Board hearing soon. He is serving an IPP sentence. He is well over tariff and appears to have been set to one side by the system. Like a large number of prisoners serving IPP he is languishing in jail waiting for someone to confirm that his risk is assessed as low so he can be moved to Open Conditions. Thereafter a period of time will pass-perhaps 1-2 years-before he is released back into the community, subject to licence conditions for at least 10 years if not life. He can then be recalled at any time by Probation. Recall means he is arrested by the police and held in a police cell before being taken back to prison. Once recalled he may start an appeal process but most lilely he will remain in custody until he can show that he has learned his lesson and is again assessed as low risk.

Why so long in custody? (This particular client has served 3 times his tariff of two years) Because the courses do not exist to process IPP's more quickly and a one size fits all approach means that only recently his educational needs have been addressed. Why has it taken nearly six years to address the real, underlying problems?

Recall can be for an actual breach of the conditions imposed o the licence or for a perceived risk of breach.

IPP is costly and although it has been scrapped by LASPO it remains unreformed for those cutrrently serving an IPP. The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke QC is thinking about introducing regulations under LASPO about how IPP prisoners are processed by the system and assessed by Probation and prison staff. A major area of contention is the use of trainee psychologists to assess prisoners for dangerousness. Too much of what is written is subjective opinion as opposed to factual evidence. Opinion of an expert is fine but often the opinions expressed by trainee psychologists could not be said to be the opinions of experts givien the lack of experience and expertise of a trainee psychologist.

The Parole Board and prison staff and probation officers and everyone involved with IPPs is risk adverse. Any excuse to say "no" to a progressive move through the prison estate from Cat A or B, to C and then D (Open) and then Release on Licence is usually taken UNLESS there is no possible reason for saying "No".

Recall rates are high. Indeed recall is usually placing more prisoners back in prison than Magistrates and Judges are sending new prisoners. Probation Officers must be seen to be tough and cannot take a risk. Imagine if a person committed a minor breach of the licence conditions and then went on to commit a crime? What would the papers say? Who would be blamed? Better to recall to prison for a minor breach and then argue for a release. This happens too often. The Probation Officer plays Prosecutor and Advocate at the same time.

It is also true to say that a prisoner who has the beneft of expert prison law advice is usually going to get through the IPP sentence quicker. This is because the expert advice is usually what the prisoner does not want to hear-that IPP is a life snetnec, that progress is achieved through acquiescence and through displaying to everyone in the prsion system that one has learned the lessons that the courses offer. A prisoner serving a determinate sentence can do whatever he/she likes and will be released (subject to recall, perhaps). The IPP prisoner does not have that luxury. Maintaining innocence is the biggest mistake an IPP prisoner can make. Unfortunately there are support groups and "experts" willing to support those maintaining their innocence. It is an easy thing to do if serving a determinate sentence-but for an IPP it is a disaster.

The biggest mistake to make is to assume that discrepancies in the evdience of witnesses is a major flaw in the prosecution case. Surely if one witness says one thing and another says a similar thing but inconsistent to another witness that must mean that the defendant is innocent and any conviction is appellable? Wrong. Grounds for appeal are limited. A Jury has heard all the evidence and convicted the defendant. This is not to say that innocent people are not convicted of crimes that they have not committed. It is to say that maintaining innocence and seeking a route to appeal is a sure fire way of spending longer in jail than is necessary. It depends, I suppose, on what matters to each individual. I have represented people who have, according to them, never committed any of the offences of which they have been convicted and who are unlucky enough to have been accused of similar offences by unrelated complainants over a period of time.

I have also represented those who have been falsely accused. They have not been convicted. Most have not been charged. The good work in relation to such cases starts in the Police Station and in how one communicates with teh Police. Too many people try to undertake this work themselves "because they are innocent" and then seek advice when charged.

However, over 20 years, I can honestly say that I have not represented one person who was not convicted of an offence or who did not plead guilty to an offence that they had in my view committed. Some have reluctantly, and upon advice, pleaded guilty when they have disputed the accuracy of the evidence by undertaking the minutiae analysis of what each witness has had to say described above without being able to view the big picture. It is a bit like being able to analyse spelling mistakes in a sentence or phrase whilst ignoring the author's message. The meaning is clear.

"FUR GOOD SEW LURVED THE WOLD THAT SHE GIVE HIS ONLY FORGOTTEN SUN".

Family and friends usually join in the denial cycle because they too can't or won't see the big picture. Ultimately the prisoner suffers by staying in custody for far too long "to prove a point". What point? Being innocent is one thing. Maintaining innocence after conviction quite another thing.

We are robust at making the Crown disclose the evidence it has and in seeking out further evidence. I am quite happy to advance a defence which is in fact a defence. We robustly defend each and every client's case. We use experts in forensic analysis and in investigation to explore every raesonable possibility.

But we also give realistic advice. Clients decide to plead guilty and they are given time to think about what they want to do. Some choose to have a trial. That is the right of every defendant, however a person convicted after trial serves longer in jail than a person who pleads guilty and a person who maintains his innocence and is subject to life sentence will remain in custody for a very long time.