Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
continuation of worried about gbh sec 18 with intent
3 Answers
I also want to ask given the infomation in my first question on my personal circumstances and the extent of his injuries if minor could my section 18 be reduced to section 20 or even abh? and could someone explain (intent) does it mean intent to hit him with a fixed glass to knock him down or does it mean intent ti kill?and also surley are there not loads of lads who get drunk of weekend and hit someone with glass or bottle but dont intend to kill him merly spur of moment? thanks for advice just worried...
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stuckinlimbo. 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.
(2-part post):
You've posted 3 questions. I'll try to provide some answers in a single post.
Ultimately, it's for the courts to decide where the borderlines lie between ABH, GBH and GBH with intent. However, the Crown Prosecution Service try to get the charge right first time. To help their staff to do so, they publish 'charging standards' which take into account both statute law and case law. These are available online here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c .html
You'll see that 'intent' refers to 'intent to do some grievous bodily harm'. Further, a factor which might indicate such intent is "deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack". A good barrister may be able to successfully argue that, because the glass was only broken during the attack, and not prior to it, that 'with intent' should not apply but, as I've stated, it would be for the court to rule on this.
You've posted 3 questions. I'll try to provide some answers in a single post.
Ultimately, it's for the courts to decide where the borderlines lie between ABH, GBH and GBH with intent. However, the Crown Prosecution Service try to get the charge right first time. To help their staff to do so, they publish 'charging standards' which take into account both statute law and case law. These are available online here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c .html
You'll see that 'intent' refers to 'intent to do some grievous bodily harm'. Further, a factor which might indicate such intent is "deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack". A good barrister may be able to successfully argue that, because the glass was only broken during the attack, and not prior to it, that 'with intent' should not apply but, as I've stated, it would be for the court to rule on this.
A glass is no less of an offensive weapon than a knife is. However, a good barrister should be able to convince the court that an assault which came about because of someone picking up a glass on the spur of the moment should result in a lower sentence than an a similar assault which came about because someone armed themselves with a knife before leaving home.
When considering sentence, a court will have a 'starting point' for each offence and will then consider the relevant points which should lead to a greater or lesser sentence. The starting point for any GBH offence (even without intent) is always a custodial sentence but relevant factors for reducing the length of the prison term, or for substituting a non-custodial sentence, include a first offence, an early guilty plea, a single blow and provocation. The court might also take into account the detrimental effects, of imprisonment, on other people (e.g. the defendant's child) A good barrister will work hard to ensure that the court takes note of all such points. (He will also try to play down the fact that his client was drunk. To do so would be likely to have the opposite effect to the one intended).
Only a very small percentage of people convicted of GBH with intent escape prison. A larger percentage of simple GBH convictions result in a non-custodial sentence but these are still in the minority. However, in either case, a decent barrister should still stand a reasonable chance of keeping his client out of prison.
Chris
When considering sentence, a court will have a 'starting point' for each offence and will then consider the relevant points which should lead to a greater or lesser sentence. The starting point for any GBH offence (even without intent) is always a custodial sentence but relevant factors for reducing the length of the prison term, or for substituting a non-custodial sentence, include a first offence, an early guilty plea, a single blow and provocation. The court might also take into account the detrimental effects, of imprisonment, on other people (e.g. the defendant's child) A good barrister will work hard to ensure that the court takes note of all such points. (He will also try to play down the fact that his client was drunk. To do so would be likely to have the opposite effect to the one intended).
Only a very small percentage of people convicted of GBH with intent escape prison. A larger percentage of simple GBH convictions result in a non-custodial sentence but these are still in the minority. However, in either case, a decent barrister should still stand a reasonable chance of keeping his client out of prison.
Chris
Chris thanks for you advice...You said the cps try to get it right the frst time. It hasn't gone to cps yet. The police made the charge in suspicion with viewing cctv gaining statments etc. I have been told they put the worst offence they can because they can't arrest someone on suspicion on abh then change it for gbh. So i'm hoping the charge may be reduced to sec 20 or even abh.
Your advice has been helpful but can i ask you one more question...
Worst case situation..if it does get to the stage where they are at the starting point would they also consider this as a factor.
The defendant lost his partner to luckemia hence why his mum was looking after his son. This was only recently, so if the defendant went to gp and got refered to 'shrink' and the shrink diagnosed the defendant with having mental illness ie post trumatic stress, depression, berevment or even neurosis would they consider this when sentencing, surly, it would be better to send someone like that to get treatment than to go to prison. I also understand that when they are going through this procedure they consider whether the person is a danger to society- given the fact that his never got in trouble and has good character-surly his very un-likly to do something simular again.
1 to 3 of 3
