Can The Media Learn How To Pronounce...
News0 min ago
Sent down for Robbery and GBH without intent
My boyfriend and his brother have just been sent down for 6 and a half years for robbery, they also got charged with GBH without intent and got 3 and half years for this. They will serve about 3 years in total. They didn't actually commit a robbery but my boyfriends brother took £30 which he was owed, this was even backed up by the CPS' witness in court. The person who they were supposed to have robbed was my bfs brothers friend of about a year and a bit of a low life to be honest, he started attacking my bf with a metal bar when they simply went round to ask for the money. No robbery was intended or planned and they didn't even intend to hurt him. It was completely innocent. He must have panicked and started attacking them but although he was the aggressor his injuries were deemed worse because he was the apparent 'victim' an my bf didn't even get his injuries properly checked out because he was considered a criminal. Anyway in court the CPS were certain they could not do them for robbery because the evidence was completely against this, and a robbery implies that you have planned it and you have intended to go round and use force to steal from someone. This is why they brought in the 2 other charges which were GBH with intent and GBH without intent. The judge explained to the jury that if they couldn't find them guilty of robbery then they must consider the other two charges. However to eveybodys surprise they found them guilty of robbery and GBH without intent. This doesn't add up, because robbery is the act of going round somewhere with intent to use force and to steal. So the charges don't even add up! We are appealing, as we believe the jury could not have possiblt understood the charges and also there was clear evidence saying money was owed and the only evidence from the CPS was from the so called 'victim' who gave 5 different accounts of his story and claimed that the discrepenceies were because the police had been inventing parts of his statement! I still can't believe what has happened and it all seems so wrong, I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on how successful the appeal might be or if they can just give me there opinion on this case, as I know my opinion may be slightly biased although I can honestly say they are not guilty of robbery. Thank you.
Answers
jack the hat if you reserch robbery it will state it has to be violence with intent. if anything i feel this points out failings in the justice system and problems of jurys not understandin
15:40 Fri 02nd Sep 2011
no they didnt hang around this all hapened in 3 mins they were beaten first unarmed the guy then my bf got the money when he was up stair the guy attacked his brother for the bar it was only then that he used violence to keep him away and stp him attacking him again they left as soon as my bf came downstairs with the money
yes but when they arnt guilty of something 3years can be very hard to take this will stain a unbelmished record. they recognise they hurt him although in self defence and have no problem serving a sentence for that. yes I agree but the barristers cant talk to us about the appeal because we arnt there clients ad thought we could maybe get someone qualified on this. we have not recived any support from the police, courts or prison it isnt just them who have been sentenced, there is no help for people like us.
Steve, those responding here are not being nasty or thriving on this thread which is either a wind up, or if true - a story which does not add up.
These 2 people have just joined AB to ask
"if anyone had any thoughts on how successful the appeal might be or if they can just give me there opinion on this case"
People have taken the time to read through their stories and give their thoughts and opinions, but if they dare to say anything not in support of their boyfriends they are told their comments are not welcome.
These 2 people have just joined AB to ask
"if anyone had any thoughts on how successful the appeal might be or if they can just give me there opinion on this case"
People have taken the time to read through their stories and give their thoughts and opinions, but if they dare to say anything not in support of their boyfriends they are told their comments are not welcome.
we have submitted a appeal it was done the next day we have been told we have gd grounds as there were wrong doings in the investigation, contradictions in the main witness statement and cross examination, and over the conviction but we dont know exactly what because we arnt there clients, and the research we have conducted on the internet has been gd but we dont have the legal understandng for all of it. also grasscarp i feel i have been reasonable with you, your entitled to your opinion im just trying to explain it more clearly as luse 87 didnt manage this quite how she wanted to
I have to agree with some of what has been written above. Only Counsel who conducted the trial or Counsel who has a copy of the transcript of the entire hearing can properly advise.
Furthermore, under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS are obliged to withdraw any charges that do not have a reasonable prospect of success (they have to pass the threshold test and the evidential test) - the Judge will have been aware of this code as would Defence counsel. Thus for the CPS to say in Court that "were certain they could not do them for robbery because the evidence was completely against this" staggers me and I am amazed that the charges were left to the jury. I wonder though if you have misunderstood - although from time to time there ARE cock ups.
Furthermore, under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS are obliged to withdraw any charges that do not have a reasonable prospect of success (they have to pass the threshold test and the evidential test) - the Judge will have been aware of this code as would Defence counsel. Thus for the CPS to say in Court that "were certain they could not do them for robbery because the evidence was completely against this" staggers me and I am amazed that the charges were left to the jury. I wonder though if you have misunderstood - although from time to time there ARE cock ups.
we have checked and double checked the convictions and they are as i say my bf only got robbery no charge of violence either which is also strange. we are baffuled and just looking for advice as we dont want to get our hopes up for an appeal if we are mistaken about the grounds hence looking for advice
Theft - section 1 Theft Act 1968
There are 5 elements of the offence:
Dishonesty
In assessing whether dishonesty can be proved, you should apply the twofold test set out in the case of R v Ghosh 75 CR App R 154, (Archbold 21-2b, 21-2c 21-24). Remember that a jury will have to consider the same two tests before they are entitled to conclude that a defendant was dishonest:
Firstly, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest? Secondly, if it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard his conduct as dishonest? If the answer to either of these two questions is no, a prosecution will fail. You should also consider the provisions of section 2 of the 1968 Act, which set out the circumstances when an appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest. (Archbold 21-23)
Appropriation
Section 3 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-31) provides that any assumption by a person, of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation. The Prosecution do not have to prove that the appropriation was without the owner's consent. An appropriation will take place as an objective fact irrespective of whether the owner authorised or consented to the appropriation. The mental state of the defendant is also irrelevant to the question of appropriation. The defendant's state of mind is only relevant to issues of dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. (Lawrence v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner 73 Cr App R 1) (Archbold 21-33) and (R v Gomez 96 Cr App R 359). (Archbold 21-34)
Property
The 1968 Act describes property as including money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. When a case involves cheques or funds in bank accounts, it is important to identify and analyse exactly what has taken place. You should examine bank account details and it may be necessary to ask the police to obtain further evidence or information before deciding on the appropriate charge.
In normal circumstances, the holder of the bank account has a right to sue the bank for the amount of any credit balance and any agreed overdraft. When it can be proved that the dishonest actions of a defendant, had the effect of extinguishing a chose in action in a bank account belonging to another person, it would be appropriate to charge the theft of a credit balance belonging to the account holder.
Belonging to another
The 1968 Act provides that property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest. If a person receives property from, or on account of another, and he is obliged to retain and deal with it in a particular way, the property still belongs to that other person. Property that has been abandoned cannot be stolen.
With the Intention of permanently depriving the other of it
When a person gets property by another's mistake, and is obliged to make restoration in whole or part of that property, an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded as an intention to permanently deprive that person of the property - section 5 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-58). Section 6 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-76) also provides assistance in situations when there has been a borrowing or lending of property in this way is to be regarded as having the intention to permanently
There are 5 elements of the offence:
Dishonesty
In assessing whether dishonesty can be proved, you should apply the twofold test set out in the case of R v Ghosh 75 CR App R 154, (Archbold 21-2b, 21-2c 21-24). Remember that a jury will have to consider the same two tests before they are entitled to conclude that a defendant was dishonest:
Firstly, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest? Secondly, if it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard his conduct as dishonest? If the answer to either of these two questions is no, a prosecution will fail. You should also consider the provisions of section 2 of the 1968 Act, which set out the circumstances when an appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest. (Archbold 21-23)
Appropriation
Section 3 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-31) provides that any assumption by a person, of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation. The Prosecution do not have to prove that the appropriation was without the owner's consent. An appropriation will take place as an objective fact irrespective of whether the owner authorised or consented to the appropriation. The mental state of the defendant is also irrelevant to the question of appropriation. The defendant's state of mind is only relevant to issues of dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. (Lawrence v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner 73 Cr App R 1) (Archbold 21-33) and (R v Gomez 96 Cr App R 359). (Archbold 21-34)
Property
The 1968 Act describes property as including money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. When a case involves cheques or funds in bank accounts, it is important to identify and analyse exactly what has taken place. You should examine bank account details and it may be necessary to ask the police to obtain further evidence or information before deciding on the appropriate charge.
In normal circumstances, the holder of the bank account has a right to sue the bank for the amount of any credit balance and any agreed overdraft. When it can be proved that the dishonest actions of a defendant, had the effect of extinguishing a chose in action in a bank account belonging to another person, it would be appropriate to charge the theft of a credit balance belonging to the account holder.
Belonging to another
The 1968 Act provides that property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest. If a person receives property from, or on account of another, and he is obliged to retain and deal with it in a particular way, the property still belongs to that other person. Property that has been abandoned cannot be stolen.
With the Intention of permanently depriving the other of it
When a person gets property by another's mistake, and is obliged to make restoration in whole or part of that property, an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded as an intention to permanently deprive that person of the property - section 5 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-58). Section 6 of the 1968 Act, (Archbold 21-76) also provides assistance in situations when there has been a borrowing or lending of property in this way is to be regarded as having the intention to permanently
Then add theft to the robbery:
Robbery, contrary to section 8(1) of the 1968 Act
The offence is committed when a person steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person, or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subject to force. (Archbold 21-101, 21-102)
Robbery is an offence triable only on indictment. The maximum penalty on conviction is imprisonment for life.
Robbery, contrary to section 8(1) of the 1968 Act
The offence is committed when a person steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person, or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subject to force. (Archbold 21-101, 21-102)
Robbery is an offence triable only on indictment. The maximum penalty on conviction is imprisonment for life.
I welcome any advice, be it in support of or not of my bf, I have worded the whole thing wrong but I am seeking advice and not an opinion on whether or not they are guilty or not. It is not possible to find them guilty of robbery and not guilty of GBH with intent. And if you believe this is a wind up then you must be are thinking that it doesn't seem real. Which is my point. And I assure you that it is not a wind up. Would seem like a bit of a weird wind up don't you think? Anyway I am sorry if I have not kept my calm but as you can understand I am very angry. I would accept that they should serve their time if they were responsible for what they were charged of but it is simply wrong, whether or not the time will fly by or not, for 3 years of someones life to be taken away from them if they are not guilty of the crime. Robbery is an extremely serious offence and although they may be guilty of GBH without intent, it is not fair to let them serve time for a totally different offence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.