Section 18 Gbh

[Holland69]

My boyfriend has recently been changed with the above offence. He has no prior offenses and has been remanded into custody. The reason for him being denied bail is because of the severity of which the assault was caused. There have been no major injuries but strangulation was a factor. Is there any likelihood that the charges can be dropped.

[EDDIE51]

Holland, in this type of case the victim very often wants the charges dropped and asks if they can 'withdraw' a statement.
Because of this it is normal for the charge to continue even without the victim's co-operation.
The chance of the charge being dropped is virtually zero,your BF is looking at a minimum of several years in prison. From your comment about '' the severity of the assault'' I would think 10 years is a likely sentence.

[Buenchico]

The Crown Prosecution Service takes the view that there are TWO 'victims' in an assault case. One is, obviously, the person who is assaulted but the other is 'the law of the land'. Even if the person who has been assaulted doesn't want the case to proceed, 'the law of the land' has still been broken and a prosecution would normally still follow.

That's particular so in domestic violence cases, where the CPS is aware that victims often come under pressure from the offender (or from others, such as the offender's family or friends) to withdraw their statement or to refuse to give evidence in court.

The actual policy document that prosecutors work to is long and complex (you can read it here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/domestic_abuse_guidelines_for_prosecutors ) but it basically boils down to saying that a prosecution should ALWAYS go ahead in domestic violence cases unless there are extremely exceptional circumstances. That would apply even when, say, the offender had simply pulled the victim's hair; it's even more likely to be followed through when the level of injuries sustained by the victim reaches the 'GBH' level.

However, in this case, it's possible that the offender's legal team might seek to get the charge reduced to 'ABH'. That's because a 'GBH' charge can only be sustained if there are 'really serious' injuries. The CPS's own guidance states this:
"Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is really serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to really serious harm include
injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or 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 or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a15
The offender's legal team might seek to show that your injuries didn't fall within those categories. (Note: you'll see that my web link refers to 'Section 20', rather than to 'Section 18'. That's not an error; the same criteria apply to both charges).

It makes a very big difference to the offender as to whether he's found guilty of 'GBH with intent' or 'ABH'. With an ABH conviction (at the more serious end of the scale), he might get away with perhaps 6 months imprisonment. For GBH with intent the sentence might be closer to 6 years:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

[Togo]

Well Holland you have received some very good advice this evening. I do not count my previous post amongst them. This is my best advice. As the older brother to 7 sisters my best advice is get out of this relationship. If you can agree to a way, with the advice of the police and whoever is speaking with you about the next stage in the proceedings, that gets the charge dropped to ABH and be happy with that then do so. But get out of all close contact with this man.

[EDDIE51]

Togo, it is not possible for Holland and the police to 'get the charge dropped to ABH' that is called a 'plea bargain' . It will only be offered if the CPS think that they may have a problem getting a conviction to the higher charge, it needs lawyers to work out if it is possible. In this case the culprit has been refused bail and remanded, so they must be pretty sure of getting the conviction to S18. Remand for a S20 or ABH is almost unknown.

[Togo]

I agree with you Eddie, but if the CPS feel they have a better chance of conviction on a lesser charge, particularly if the main witness shows reluctance to be a reliable witness for whatever reason, they may decide to drop the charge to a lesser one. Bail may have been refused if the police could convince that immediate release was ill advised. Once things have gone off the boil it may change their stance. Costs and time etc.

[EDDIE51]

They do not need Holland's co-operation, there must be medical evidence of strangulation. That is enough to get a conviction.

[New Judge]

"In this case the culprit has been refused bail and remanded, so they must be pretty sure of getting the conviction..."

As I said earlier, Eddie, there is no link between the granting of bail and the likliehood of a conviction.

[Holland69]

Thank you all for the advice given and yes the relationship has ended nit only for my own safety but that of my children. I have sustained significant bruising around the neck which support the claim of strangulation and loss if consciousness. From what advice given and research done a prison sentence is imminent and the length will be determined by other factors. Sad state if affairs but it is what it is.

[EDDIE51]

'Significant bruising and loss of consciousness' You really are lucky your BF is not on a murder charge!

[Peter Pedant]

// As I said earlier, Eddie, there is no link between the granting of bail and the likliehood of a conviction./

blimey I never thought I would hear a lawyer say that

so the prisons really ARE full of innocent people

One of my co-workers was remanded in custody for GBH for 60d ( so it must have been yonx ago ) and on the first day of the trial ( it made a good story ) the judge asked:

Is the Crown going to offer any evidence on whose knife it was ?
and the greasy jobber said 'I believe not my Lord'
and his lordship asked: " is the defence going to be he took the knife off the victim and stabbed him in self defence ? "
"

and the judge yelled Case dismissed - the self defence plea must succeed

sort of fifteen minutes into the case

I always wondered if it were true

[Peter Pedant]

sorry auto delete of more fascinating lawyer-logue on how the defence would be self-defence ....