Abh Query

[np181]

Would the need for a few stitches for laceration which does NOT require a blood transfusion be greater or lesser harm?

[Buenchico]

There are other factors which can come into play when deciding whether 'greater' or 'lesser' harm is involved in an ABH offence, such as whether the injury came about from just a single blow or a sustained assault. See page 11 here:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

However, looking at the CPS charging guidelines
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
the injury you describe is probably nearer to the 'common assault' end of the 'ABH' scale than it is to the 'GBH' end. So it might well be classed as 'lesser harm' UNLESS, for example, the wound caused a nasty facial scar (leading to lifelong disfigurement) in which case it would almost certainly be classed as 'greater harm'.

[calmck]

I wouldn't have thought the need for a blood transfusion or not has too much to do with the degree of ABH

[np181]

Thanks for replies Buen. It says "must normally be present". What does this mean? Also would stitches on the chest still be lesser harm, providing no blood transfusion?

[Buenchico]

It's down to the court on the day to make the decision. There can be no hard and fast rules. However the court is likely to take into account any mental distress caused to the victim on the day of the assault and possibly afterwards.

So an injury to a young guy who's used to being fights and who simply brushes off having a few stitches inserted as a 'minor inconvenience', might be seen as 'lesser harm', whereas the same injury to a vulnerable pensioner (or, say, to a young guy who makes his living from modelling swimwear) might be seen as 'greater harm'.

The extent of the injury alone won't be the deciding factor in making the decision. The circumstances around it will also be taken into consideration.

[np181]

But it says "serious injury must normally be present"?

[np181]

And ignoring the other factors, what would the chest stitches be?

[Buenchico]

As far as the Crown Prosecution Service is concerned "serious injuries include damaged teeth or bones, extensive and severe bruising, cuts requiring suturing and those that result in loss of consciousness." (Link as above).

Statements by the CPS aren't law but, because they're based upon their experiences of prosecuting hundreds of thousands of assault cases, they're still a damned good indication of how a court might interpret the law.

So, if a victim required stitches, it's likely that a court would regard that as 'serious injury'.

[np181]

Hang on you've previously said otherwise in the context of ABH. (greater or lesser and chest for instance)

[np181]

And why would the guidelines state "must normally be present" for the higher categories?

[Buenchico]

My reading of the guidelines is that cuts requiring stitches count as 'serious injury' but that doesn't automatically mean that 'greater harm' applies. The court must then examine other factors, as above, to determine the level of harm.

It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else here writes. We won't have exactly the same information in front of them as the magistrates (or judge) will. Neither will we know how hard the CPS's lawyer will push the bench towards a higher sentence. I've been in courtrooms where the defendant has pleaded guilty and the CPS have done nothing more to outline the bare facts of the case to the court. On other occasions though, I've seen the CPS lawyer really 'lay it on thick' in their description of events, emphasising how traumatic the assault must have been to the victim, clearly in an attempt to get the bench to see the case as one involving 'serious harm'. It will all come down to how things pan out on the day.

[np181]

But are stitches generally less serious in the context of ABH?

[Buenchico]

There can't be a simple 'Yes' or 'No' to that question.

A couple of stitches to the chest of a 'tough guy', leaving no real visible scar (and where he'd happily sat in the A&E waiting area chatting to his mates) might well be 'lesser harm'.

A nasty laceration to the chest of a vulnerable pensioner, leaving a big scar (where he'd been terrified of his experience in A&E and couldn't sleep properly for weeks afterwards because of the assault) would almost certainly be seen as 'greater harm'.

As I've repeatedly said, there's a lot more to be considered than just the level of physical injury.

[np181]

But my other question is that "must normally be present" implies that serious injury in the context of ABH is required for the increased category. Is this the case?

[np181]

What about if say the victim was under 18? Would that make a difference?

[Buenchico]

For sentencing purposes, an assault is considered more serious where the victim is a child but the Sentencing Guidelines Council's definition of a 'child' is a person under 16 years of age (not 18).

[np181]

Would assault on an under 16 increase the harm though? As far as I can tell it says "greater harm (serious injury must normally be present)".

[Buenchico]

Under 'factors indicating greater harm', in my first link above, this appears: "Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal
circumstances". That might well be taken by a court to include the victim simply being a child.

[np181]

One more question. Do they aggravating/mitigating factors of domestic abuse apply to deciding the category or deciding within the category?

[np181]

As in the harm/culpability bit or the second bit?

[Buenchico]

If the offence was actually one involving domestic abuse then, clearly, the relevant guidelines will apply. If it wasn't, they won't apply directly but the court will still be cognisant of them.