News5 mins ago
Gbh
Hi.
A friend was today charged with GBH section 20 and common assault. He isn't hopeful on the common assault as it was in a domestic situation and left a bruise on his partner as he tried to get her off him. He feels that no court will believe he wasn't the aggressor.
The section 20 involves him driving away from his partner who chased and grabbed his car handle sustaining a fractured shoulder. He is adamant he didn't know she was at the car, however a witness from around 30 metres away has said she was stood at the window before he moved off. I have told him he needs to maintain his innocence if he didn't see her but he is considering guilty plea to reduce sentence. I have posted on his behalf previously while on bail but as he is now charged wondered if there were any thoughts or advice. Seems wholly unfair that a man of good character can be at fault for someone chasing the car and he be held accountable.
Thanks.
A friend was today charged with GBH section 20 and common assault. He isn't hopeful on the common assault as it was in a domestic situation and left a bruise on his partner as he tried to get her off him. He feels that no court will believe he wasn't the aggressor.
The section 20 involves him driving away from his partner who chased and grabbed his car handle sustaining a fractured shoulder. He is adamant he didn't know she was at the car, however a witness from around 30 metres away has said she was stood at the window before he moved off. I have told him he needs to maintain his innocence if he didn't see her but he is considering guilty plea to reduce sentence. I have posted on his behalf previously while on bail but as he is now charged wondered if there were any thoughts or advice. Seems wholly unfair that a man of good character can be at fault for someone chasing the car and he be held accountable.
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ambuman. 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.
I think PP means even if he pleads guilty he may go to jail.
The reason for this is that he already has /will have one count of assault to his partner against him ( the common assault), now a second charge this time more serious against the same person is on the way. That makes it likely he will go to jail. It would look to the court that he assaulted her once and then a few days late returned and assaulted her again.
This really does need a solicitor he MUST get one ASAP.
A 'no comment'interview is rarely a good idea. I can not see a competent solicitor allowing him to make one. Remember the standard warning when anyone is arrested '' It may harm your defense , if you do not mention now something you later rely on in court'' That is why a 'no comment' statement is not a good idea. In reality they are more a plot in a film or TV drama than a sensible defense.
The reason for this is that he already has /will have one count of assault to his partner against him ( the common assault), now a second charge this time more serious against the same person is on the way. That makes it likely he will go to jail. It would look to the court that he assaulted her once and then a few days late returned and assaulted her again.
This really does need a solicitor he MUST get one ASAP.
A 'no comment'interview is rarely a good idea. I can not see a competent solicitor allowing him to make one. Remember the standard warning when anyone is arrested '' It may harm your defense , if you do not mention now something you later rely on in court'' That is why a 'no comment' statement is not a good idea. In reality they are more a plot in a film or TV drama than a sensible defense.
Thanks again Eddie. I agree about the interview. If he never saw her then I thought he did the right thing in coming straight out and saying it in interview. I still think he should have taken legal representation at the station though. Both accusations were reported at the same time - around 2 weeks after the events when he made it clear he would not be returning to the relationship. unfortunately with the common assault he feels like he doesn't stand a chance of explaining self defence as he is the male in the situation or is this just a societal myth? Thanks to all for the thoughts so far. They are very much appreciated!
The more you say about this the more I realize he needs a solicitor.
If the common assault was not reported for 2 weeks surely the bruise would not still be visible or even if it was there would be no way to prove it was caused by him. Did he admit the common assault in the statement? A solicitor would have told him not to admit it.
If the common assault was not reported for 2 weeks surely the bruise would not still be visible or even if it was there would be no way to prove it was caused by him. Did he admit the common assault in the statement? A solicitor would have told him not to admit it.
