Body & Soul0 min ago
gbh
7 Answers
My nephew was out with workmates including his manager and his managers friend. The managers friend was pestering one of the young girls and my nephew asked him to leave her alone. Managers friend became abusive and nephew thought he was going to get hit so hit him first. His manager took his friend to hospital soon after as he had fractured his cheekbone.
On Monday at work his manager said everything was ok and to forget about it.
Today-3 weeks later- he got a call saying he had been accused of GBH and to attend the police station on Friday. He is in total shock as he thought it had all blown over. Does anyone know what the outcome could be?
On Monday at work his manager said everything was ok and to forget about it.
Today-3 weeks later- he got a call saying he had been accused of GBH and to attend the police station on Friday. He is in total shock as he thought it had all blown over. Does anyone know what the outcome could be?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by crapmemory. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Let's deal with this bit first:
"nephew thought he was going to get hit so hit him first"
'Self defence' is only a valid defence in a court of law if the absolute minimum amount of force was used, when it was impossible to simply get away from the other person.
If your nephew could have simply run away, 'self defence' won't carry any weight in court. If you nephew could simply have pushed the other guy away, giving your nephew time to run away, 'self defence' won't work. If your nephew could have used less force, or used a blow which was less likely to cause real injury (such a punch to the midriff) 'self defence' is meaningless.
Your nephew should contact a solicitor and ensure that he attends the police station with him. GBH (when charged under Section 20 of the relevant legislation, which would seem to apply here) is an 'either way' offence. That means that it can be dealt with in a magistrates' court or the magistrates can refer it up to the Crown court. (That usually occurs when the magistrates believe that their sentencing powers might be insufficient). In practice, the majority of GBH cases end up before the Crown court. Unless your nephew's legal team are 100% certain that he acted within the legal definition of 'self defence' (and not just because he thought of his actions as defending himself), he should plead guilty.
Please see my post, here, regarding the likely sentence:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How-it-Works/Qu estion639685.html
Chris
"nephew thought he was going to get hit so hit him first"
'Self defence' is only a valid defence in a court of law if the absolute minimum amount of force was used, when it was impossible to simply get away from the other person.
If your nephew could have simply run away, 'self defence' won't carry any weight in court. If you nephew could simply have pushed the other guy away, giving your nephew time to run away, 'self defence' won't work. If your nephew could have used less force, or used a blow which was less likely to cause real injury (such a punch to the midriff) 'self defence' is meaningless.
Your nephew should contact a solicitor and ensure that he attends the police station with him. GBH (when charged under Section 20 of the relevant legislation, which would seem to apply here) is an 'either way' offence. That means that it can be dealt with in a magistrates' court or the magistrates can refer it up to the Crown court. (That usually occurs when the magistrates believe that their sentencing powers might be insufficient). In practice, the majority of GBH cases end up before the Crown court. Unless your nephew's legal team are 100% certain that he acted within the legal definition of 'self defence' (and not just because he thought of his actions as defending himself), he should plead guilty.
Please see my post, here, regarding the likely sentence:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How-it-Works/Qu estion639685.html
Chris
Thanks for the reply.
Saying that there were 'no witnesses' would seem to put your nephew's manager in an awkward position. He might be inclined to help your nephew but lying to the police and the courts could land him in some very serious trouble. It's likely that the police will seek a statement from him and that could negate the 'no witnesses' line of defence.
Also, while a court will always hesitate to convict upon the basis of evidence from a victim alone (because the victim might have a grudge against the person he's accusing or because the accused might have actually started the fight), they might be likely to believe someone who'd got medical evidence to show the extent of his injuries and who was certain as to the identity of his attacker. (Your nephew could exercise his right not to give evidence but the court could draw unhelpful inferences from this. If your nephew gave evidence, he could be subjected to some aggressive questioning, which could make him 'drop himself in it').
According to your account of things, your nephew is guilty and he might be unwise to try to deny it. An early guilty plea might well result in a non-custodial sentence. 'Fighting to the last' might well see him 'sent down'.
Chris
Saying that there were 'no witnesses' would seem to put your nephew's manager in an awkward position. He might be inclined to help your nephew but lying to the police and the courts could land him in some very serious trouble. It's likely that the police will seek a statement from him and that could negate the 'no witnesses' line of defence.
Also, while a court will always hesitate to convict upon the basis of evidence from a victim alone (because the victim might have a grudge against the person he's accusing or because the accused might have actually started the fight), they might be likely to believe someone who'd got medical evidence to show the extent of his injuries and who was certain as to the identity of his attacker. (Your nephew could exercise his right not to give evidence but the court could draw unhelpful inferences from this. If your nephew gave evidence, he could be subjected to some aggressive questioning, which could make him 'drop himself in it').
According to your account of things, your nephew is guilty and he might be unwise to try to deny it. An early guilty plea might well result in a non-custodial sentence. 'Fighting to the last' might well see him 'sent down'.
Chris
Is this his first offence? I hope you got a good solicitor. Have a look at what your nephew might be looking at on www.thelawpages.com - it has a database of sentences and can help you work out what he might be looking at, if convicted. Its also got a directory which might help you find a solicitor.
I agree it'll be section 20 - without intent - so make sure that's what you look up.
I agree it'll be section 20 - without intent - so make sure that's what you look up.
Got a solicitor to go with my nephew to the police station, The charge has been reduced to ABH and he has to return to the police station 2nd December. His solicitor said there is not much evidence apart from a statement fro the injured party,and the fact that he went willingly to the police should go in his favour.
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Motoring10 mins ago
