Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Is This Specific Intent??
15 Answers
Hi all. I recently posted on here on 3rd December and am very grateful of the replies I received. 1 or 2 circumstances have changed and I'm wondering if you think cps will decide to charge section 18 or 20. I'll be a bit more brief this time. Whilst out with my girlfriend I was called a dirty screw by a stranger and he attempted to assault me. I defended myself reasonably(which is on CCTV). I was then asked to leave the premises which I did. I waited outside talking to my girlfriend for approx 10 minutes, expecting to be questioned by the police who were outside at the time. The defendant was asked to leave with his friends the same time as me which is why I waited around and didn't feel safe walking home until he had left the area. All of outside is on CCTV except when he walks past the police then runs up to me and punches me when I'm not looking. This, however, was witnessed by the police. There were witnesses to say he'd stamped on me but they have all refused to get involved. Only the one punch was witnessed by the police. The main injuries involve permanent loss of sight in right eye, fractured skull, shattered eye socket, broken cheekbone, and fractured jaw. Already had a 5 hour operation and due another one next month. I've been advised that it's probably going to be section 20 but having read up on it, I think it's a section 18. Doesn't the fact that he's already assaulted me once inside, and the fact that he's thought and planned his actions for 10 minutes outside, prove specific intent??
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
I still think it is an 18. The evidence of what he said and his expressed attitude rules out that he was not minded to do some serious harm, plus the injuries are serious as well as suggesting more than just one punch. Quite possibly they resulted wholly or in part from being stamped on. Offered a s 20 on a plea, I would go for the trial of the s18 on this, but have a...
13:49 Tue 28th Jan 2014
It's only a section 20 if there was only one blow and no more (statement of intent by assailant prior to assault or of satisfaction after it), the consequences being far more severe than the assailant might reasonably contemplate or foresee.If there was a weapon ,or if there were several blows witnessed, or several injuries showing that there must have been several blows, it's section 18.
Thank you again Fred. Surely any reasonable person would foresee fractures being a consequence though. He's run up to me and hit me when I'm not prepared or expecting it. He admits to assaulting me inside and stated that I embarrassed him by defending myself and having the better of him so he decided to "give me a ***" outside!! Police officer described the noise as a loud crunch which echoed, which is an indication of the force he used. I'm so frustrated as I know he's stamped on me but that CCTV is no longer available. Do you think he'll receive a 1/3 off too for a guilty plea or does or does that depend on circumstances? He had no choice but to go guilty really as it was witnessed by police and I think he'll argue the facts which might results in a Newton hearing?
These are terribly serious injuries. The one blow aimed somewhere near the orbit has blown out the orbit and from what you say ruptured the eye ball. Very high pressures are needed to do this.
Obviously life changing - I imagine you cant work
I hope things go better for you (obviously I cant say 'go away' )
I was gonna say that perhaps the serious injuries showed/implied specific intent - such sever injries that you cand do them by mistake - but from Freddie says, that would not be the case.
Obviously life changing - I imagine you cant work
I hope things go better for you (obviously I cant say 'go away' )
I was gonna say that perhaps the serious injuries showed/implied specific intent - such sever injries that you cand do them by mistake - but from Freddie says, that would not be the case.
Thanks Peter. The choroid is ruptured down the centre. My infra orbital nerve was damaged too, which means the right side of my face under my eye, nose, top lip and teeth are numb. I know these injuries may not have been intended but the fractures were surely intended. If you hit some one with that much force, surely you expect to at least cause a fracture? Still unable to work or drive. Have another ct scan today as they need to determine why the eyeball has sunk back since the operation. I was told another operation is inevitable with higher risks. Could possible lose the eye(worst case scenario). I totally respect what Fred is saying and expected a section 20 but can't understand the law. Surely serious injury was intended?
I still think it is an 18. The evidence of what he said and his expressed attitude rules out that he was not minded to do some serious harm, plus the injuries are serious as well as suggesting more than just one punch. Quite possibly they resulted wholly or in part from being stamped on.
Offered a s 20 on a plea, I would go for the trial of the s18 on this, but have a separate alternative count of s20 for the jury's benefit. Then let the jury say which it is; I expect the CPS will do the same , given what you say. The best you could do, being friendly, is say to defence counsel 'If you plead to the 18, I'll open it low !"
Offered a s 20 on a plea, I would go for the trial of the s18 on this, but have a separate alternative count of s20 for the jury's benefit. Then let the jury say which it is; I expect the CPS will do the same , given what you say. The best you could do, being friendly, is say to defence counsel 'If you plead to the 18, I'll open it low !"
Thank you so much. I hope the cps think the same. CID didn't manage to get the evidence ready to put to the cps today so I doubt I'll know the charge until Monday now. In a way I'm hoping he'll get charged with section 18 and go not guilty. If the jury then decide on a guilty verdict then he won't get his 1/3 reduction. Thank you again for your expert advice.
The difference between sections 18 & 20 of Offences against the person act 1861 as you know is largely one of intent section 18 requires that it was intended to cause GBH and basic together with specific intent both establish the mens rea (guilty mind) basic intent often by recklessness and specific intent by intention. Surely your union is involved?
It's an incident outside of work so it's slightly different. Staff association have offered help and guidance but I think it's all out of my hands. I went to see a solicitor and they explained that there's nothing they can do to help me. As I'm just a victim then I don't require representation and won't be required in court unless he's charged with s18 and pleads not guilty. So far he's admitted everything but I still don't think he knows the seriousness of his offence. He's approached me several times whilst on bail and has assaulted someone else which is on CCTV.
Hi Peter. He's approached me on 6 or 7 occasions. I spoke to him on his last attempt which was this week.He asked me if my eye was better so I explained the meaning of permanent damage to him!! I haven't received the results of my most recent ct scan but I have been advised than another op is inevitable. I had a scan of my eye by the ophthalmologist which showed a clear rupture down the centre of the choroid (behind the retina). He explained that a huge amount of pressure would be required to cause this. The last time he seen the same injury was in a youngster who had a firework go off in his eye! I do have very light perception in the eye but anything I fix on, I can't see. Even a person stood a yard away from me, I wouldn't recognise them. The ophthalmologist said that if it was my only eye, I would be registered blind.
The prosecution should get a statement from the doctor who examined you, or some other expert, expanding on the usual statement. This normally recites the injuries but it is lacking in any opinion about them. What is needed is a statement saying that such and such an injury could only be the result of severe impact, such as a kick.This may result in the defence feeling obliged to have the doctor called to give evidence. That almost never works in their favour; seeing the doctor in person and dealing with the suggestion that the cause was less grave than suggested, invariably results in a convincing explanation in which the doctor gratuitously says that, in fact, it could well be worse than they have just said; their opinion in the statement is that was the very least it could be.
Thank you Fred. Do you think the prosecution will do this even if it doesn't go to trial? If they only charge him with section 20 and he pleads guilty, would they still request a statement. The ophthalmologist said that the loss of sight isn't 100% but it's "super significant" and the sight is "useless" to me. I'm worried the medical report isn't going to reflect the extent of my injuries. I agree, a statement or doctor as witness will definitely prove the severity. The max fax doctor even told me, he would be very surprised if a single punch caused my injuries. I know for certain I've been stamped on but it's so frustrating that it can't be proved!!
If they go for s18, they may well get a further statement of opinion. It is possible, though not likely, that the statement already served for court has that.I'd be inclined to get a statement; a letter would do in the first instance;from one of your specialist doctors in which they say how severe the injuries are, the prognosis, and the likely cause viz. that they required great force and are consistent with a kick or kicks. Then send that to the CPS for their information.
1 to 15 of 15
