Body & Soul13 mins ago
Gbh After An Altercation Whilst Playing Football
My husband has had a gbh charge made against him.
Last July whilst playing football a player from the opposing team accused my husband of purposely tripping him over. My husband apologised and explained that this was an accident and proceeded to continue with the football match. The player began using abusive language towards my husband and started to walk towards my husband with his arms raised as if he would push my husband. My husband then brought the player to the floor in self defence and as a result broke the collar bone of the player.
This was dealt with by the police at the time and the police decided not to take it any further after talking to witnesses. The "victim" did not see this as acceptable and continued to pursue it. More months passed without any news and just 2 weeks ago my husband received a letter with a court date. This incident happened in July so almost 9 months have passed without my husband having heard anything about it.
He has been to magistrates court today, been advised to plead 'no plea intended'
He has to go to crown court on July 29th, there will be no jury. He plans on pleading guilty, his statement says that it was in self defence but he's not denying that he did not cause harm to the player.
A witness made a statement to say it looked pretty much 50/50 and both my husband and the other football player were just in a usual football scuffle.
The lad has his brother who has made a statement for him and they are both saying that my husband approached him (which is a lie)
Anyway, it is his word against my husbands as there are no other witnesses or CCTV.
I wondered is he likely to get a custodial sentence?
Thank you for any advice
Last July whilst playing football a player from the opposing team accused my husband of purposely tripping him over. My husband apologised and explained that this was an accident and proceeded to continue with the football match. The player began using abusive language towards my husband and started to walk towards my husband with his arms raised as if he would push my husband. My husband then brought the player to the floor in self defence and as a result broke the collar bone of the player.
This was dealt with by the police at the time and the police decided not to take it any further after talking to witnesses. The "victim" did not see this as acceptable and continued to pursue it. More months passed without any news and just 2 weeks ago my husband received a letter with a court date. This incident happened in July so almost 9 months have passed without my husband having heard anything about it.
He has been to magistrates court today, been advised to plead 'no plea intended'
He has to go to crown court on July 29th, there will be no jury. He plans on pleading guilty, his statement says that it was in self defence but he's not denying that he did not cause harm to the player.
A witness made a statement to say it looked pretty much 50/50 and both my husband and the other football player were just in a usual football scuffle.
The lad has his brother who has made a statement for him and they are both saying that my husband approached him (which is a lie)
Anyway, it is his word against my husbands as there are no other witnesses or CCTV.
I wondered is he likely to get a custodial sentence?
Thank you for any advice
Answers
You appear to have described a 'Category 3' offence because 'harm' is clearly low (as a broken collar bone is a relatively minor injury within what GBH can cover) and '
19:13 Mon 30th Mar 2015
You appear to have described a 'Category 3' offence because 'harm' is clearly low (as a broken collar bone is a relatively minor injury within what GBH can cover) and 'culpability' is also low (because it wasn't, for example, a sustained attack or an attack where the victim has deliberately been hunted down in order to attack them).
While a Category 3 GBH offence can result in a custodial sentence, it would be very unusual as the 'starting point' that a judge must use is 'high level' Community Order and it would take something like a repeated offence (and a not guilty plea to it as well) to see custody considered.
So you husband will almost certainly receive a Community Order (i.e. unpaid work).
See pages 7 to 10 here to read exactly what the judge must refer to when considering sentence:
http://
While a Category 3 GBH offence can result in a custodial sentence, it would be very unusual as the 'starting point' that a judge must use is 'high level' Community Order and it would take something like a repeated offence (and a not guilty plea to it as well) to see custody considered.
So you husband will almost certainly receive a Community Order (i.e. unpaid work).
See pages 7 to 10 here to read exactly what the judge must refer to when considering sentence:
http://
What is the actual charge,section 20 or section 18?
S20 is GBH without intent S18 is GBH with intent.
Any GBH charge is serious and can result in a prison sentence. S18 is the more serious of the two and is almost always a prison sentence. Your husband needs to see a lawyer urgently and get advice. Do NOT let him just go to court wrthout expert advice.
S20 is GBH without intent S18 is GBH with intent.
Any GBH charge is serious and can result in a prison sentence. S18 is the more serious of the two and is almost always a prison sentence. Your husband needs to see a lawyer urgently and get advice. Do NOT let him just go to court wrthout expert advice.
It is a section 20.
He has been to magistrates court today with solicitor and been told to plead "no plea intended"
He will plead guilty when he goes to crown court in July.
I don't know why there are no other witnesses, maybe people just want to stay out of it. The "victim" has had two people give statements on his behalf but both are different.
He has been to magistrates court today with solicitor and been told to plead "no plea intended"
He will plead guilty when he goes to crown court in July.
I don't know why there are no other witnesses, maybe people just want to stay out of it. The "victim" has had two people give statements on his behalf but both are different.
The refree must have written a report on an incident where one player was injured by another player in a match. I suggest your husband finds the ref and asks him.
Also get him to talk to his solicitor about the chance of a 'plea bargain' where the charge is dropped to ABH in return for a guilty plea.
Also get him to talk to his solicitor about the chance of a 'plea bargain' where the charge is dropped to ABH in return for a guilty plea.
Since he entered no plea the Magistrates have to go through a process known as "allocation" to determine the venue. To do this they hear the facts and decide how serious the matter is. If they retain jurisdiction the defendant still has the choice to have the matter sent to the High Court.
Did the Magistrates decline jurisdiction (and so send the matter to the Crown Court)? Or did your husband elect to have the matter heard there?
If the decision was made by the Magistrates it indicates that they consider the matter too serious for their sentencing powers.
There is no time limit on “either way” offences (which this is).
It is a matter for the Magistrates whether the matter goes to the Crown Court (subject to the defendant having the right to a Crown Court trial should the Magistrates retain jurisdiction) and your husband should have been present in court when that decision was made. The “starting point” for GBH offences is sending to the Crown Court for those in Categories 1 and 2 and for those within Category 3 Crown Court is within the normal sentencing range.
I do not understand why your husband has withheld his plea in the Magistrates’ Court. If he intends to plead guilty he could have done so in the lower court and, whilst the Magistrates would have the option to send him to the Crown Court for sentence, an early plea in the Magistrates’ Court would have gone in his favour.
He needs to ask his solicitor why the matter has gone to the Crown Court (although it is too late now to reverse that decision). But it may help him and you understand the likelihood of a custodial sentence.
It is a matter for the Magistrates whether the matter goes to the Crown Court (subject to the defendant having the right to a Crown Court trial should the Magistrates retain jurisdiction) and your husband should have been present in court when that decision was made. The “starting point” for GBH offences is sending to the Crown Court for those in Categories 1 and 2 and for those within Category 3 Crown Court is within the normal sentencing range.
I do not understand why your husband has withheld his plea in the Magistrates’ Court. If he intends to plead guilty he could have done so in the lower court and, whilst the Magistrates would have the option to send him to the Crown Court for sentence, an early plea in the Magistrates’ Court would have gone in his favour.
He needs to ask his solicitor why the matter has gone to the Crown Court (although it is too late now to reverse that decision). But it may help him and you understand the likelihood of a custodial sentence.
It seems his solicitor has given poor advice. There is an automatic 1/3 reduction in sentence ( any sentence not just custodial) for a guilty plea at the earlyest possible time. That would have been at the magistrates court.
The advice to offer 'no plea' seemed strange to me when I first read this question. I can only assume the solicitor knows something we don't.
The advice to offer 'no plea' seemed strange to me when I first read this question. I can only assume the solicitor knows something we don't.
Yes I quite agree, Eddie. If the solicitor suggested it would go to Crown Court regardless, the seriousness must put it into category 2. It would be interesting to learn on what basis that decision was taken.
Defendants often offer no plea in such situations. It does not usually jeopardise their guilty plea discount at the Crown Court provided no undue expense or delay results.
This is indeed a strange state of affairs and I can only presume there are features present which we do not know about.
Defendants often offer no plea in such situations. It does not usually jeopardise their guilty plea discount at the Crown Court provided no undue expense or delay results.
This is indeed a strange state of affairs and I can only presume there are features present which we do not know about.
Reading the whole question carefully I can deduce
1 The 'Husband' was accused of purposly tripping (fouling) another player who complained about it.
2 The 'other player'was then abusive to the 'husband' and approched him in a threatening manner.
3 'Husband' then ''brought the player to the ground in self defence'' which caused a fractured collar bone.
It could be arugued that the husband first of all fouled the other player and when that player approached the husband he overeacted and threw the player to the ground so hard he broke a collar bone. There is nothing to say the other player struck the husband first so throwing him to the ground hard could too much for 'self defence' which has to be in proportion to the force used.
All this , and it is only speculative, could put this into cat 2.
1 The 'Husband' was accused of purposly tripping (fouling) another player who complained about it.
2 The 'other player'was then abusive to the 'husband' and approched him in a threatening manner.
3 'Husband' then ''brought the player to the ground in self defence'' which caused a fractured collar bone.
It could be arugued that the husband first of all fouled the other player and when that player approached the husband he overeacted and threw the player to the ground so hard he broke a collar bone. There is nothing to say the other player struck the husband first so throwing him to the ground hard could too much for 'self defence' which has to be in proportion to the force used.
All this , and it is only speculative, could put this into cat 2.
Could be, Eddie. Always difficult to say without the prosecution's official version of events.
When it comes to "allocation", although it is ultimately a matter for the Bench, they pay considerable heed to the views of the two advocates. Following their recital of the facts the prosecution voices their view on the suitability of venue. Either:
"The Crown suggests your sentencing powers are sufficient and that this matter is suitable for trial in this court"
or
"In view of the [factors making the matter too serious] we suggest that your Worhsips' sentencing powers are insufficient and that this matter should be heard in the Crown Court."
The defence advocate has the opportunity to oppose the suggestion that the case goes to the Crown Court. In this case the Magistrates would have to make a decision. However, it would be most unusual for the Bench to go against the prosecution's suggestion if there was no opposition. Maybe that's what happened here.
When it comes to "allocation", although it is ultimately a matter for the Bench, they pay considerable heed to the views of the two advocates. Following their recital of the facts the prosecution voices their view on the suitability of venue. Either:
"The Crown suggests your sentencing powers are sufficient and that this matter is suitable for trial in this court"
or
"In view of the [factors making the matter too serious] we suggest that your Worhsips' sentencing powers are insufficient and that this matter should be heard in the Crown Court."
The defence advocate has the opportunity to oppose the suggestion that the case goes to the Crown Court. In this case the Magistrates would have to make a decision. However, it would be most unusual for the Bench to go against the prosecution's suggestion if there was no opposition. Maybe that's what happened here.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog20 mins ago
Arts & Literature23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
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.