Aggrevated burgulary and GBH

[jugni]

my husband is a company director in a construction company. my husband had recieved a voice message from one of his employees ( Mr gill) who was thtreatening to get him kidnapped and kill him and all sorts, my husband then went to confront him at his house, he went and and making him listen to the message untill some men came and attacked mr gill my husband alsoi got pushed and fell to the floor but soon got up and walked away as he didnt want to get involved but then 2 days later he got arrested because mr gill had made a statement to the police that my husband went there with some men and he said that my husband punched him in the face but the other guys hit him with sticks and a metal bangal and caused him a 1 and a half inch cut on his forhead and that also my husband and the men smashed his windows, TV and all sorts.
there have been two statements made one from mr gill who says he was sitting on his bed when my hudband attacked him but the other man that lived with ,mr gill said that thet attacked mr gill in the hall way.

my husband is now on remand and going to maybe be charged with aggrevated burgulary and GBH. so what can the sentence be and any way out?

[fredpuli47]

No, Kingbushido, it is not aggravated burglary 'because of the gbh' ! Burglary is only 'aggravated burglary' if the person commits burglary and at the time has with him any firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence or any explosive.No assault is necessary, only the possession of a weapon etc

Ordinary burglary however includes 'having entered a building as a trespasser, inflicting or attempting to inflict on any person any grievous bodily harm' or so entering with intent to inflict it.

Aggravated burglary would be an odd choice of charge in such a case.It's used appropriately for burglars who go out armed to commit theft burglary, not people who visit someone intending to inflict gbh or doing so.It's unnecessary to involve questions of trespass if the charge is simply 'attempting gbh'(there is no gbh described here) or, better, 'wounding with intent to cause gbh' or just 'unlawful wounding' and the prosecution should proceed on one of those.

The tape is relevant to show intent on the part of Gill to inflict harm. Of course, it may not explain why someone who was aware of that would go to visit the malicious individual ! His visit suggests that the accused was braver than most or reckless or that he did not take the threats literally. In any case, on his version he has not been a party to any assault but was an innocent bystander with no intent that anyone be assaulted and should therefore contest any charge.