GBH with intent Section 18

[johnniewalsh]

What constitutes a defence against GBH section 18

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

The essential difference between Section 20 and Section 18 offences is that of 'intent'.

The Crown Prosecution Service website says this:
"Factors that may indicate the specific intent include:
* a repeated or planned attack;
* deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack;
* making prior threats;
* using an offensive weapon against, or kicking the victim's head"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c .html#11

If any of those factors (or similar ones) are present, it would be hard to prove that no 'intent' was present. However, if no such factors applied, the defence could seek to get the charge dropped down to Section 20.

[Buenchico]

Alternatively, the defence could seek to show that the level of injuries sustained by the victim weren't sufficient for a 'GBH' charge (either under Section 20 or Section 18). The CPS website gives these as examples of the types of injuries which come under 'GBH':
* injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
* injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
* compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
* injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
* injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
* psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c .html#10

If the level of injuries sustained by the victim were lower than those described above, the defence could seek to get the charge dropped to 'ABH'.

'Self defence' would be extremely hard to prove. The defence would have to show both that the defendant could not escape from the situation and that he used the minimum amount of force required to defend himself.

Otherwise, unless the defendant can show that it's a case of mistaken identity, there's no defence available.

Chris