Is Elon Musk An "Absolute Hero...
News1 min ago
Section 18 assault charge, yet he wasn't there?
42 Answers
Hi and thanks for any advice in advance.
My son is in custody on remand and facing a section 18 assault charge, which is going to trial this week. however i am 100% certain he didnt do it as he was with me at the time!
Yet he has been arrested for it, there apparently was only the victim at the scene of the crime and no other witnesses.
This person has known my son for several years and named it as being him, and did a id parade and identified the person as my son as commiting the assault to him.
How does this stand in a court of law and trial? im standing as a witness to give my wereabouts and my sons on the relevant day
there are no other witnesses at all just the victim and the id parade
My son is in custody on remand and facing a section 18 assault charge, which is going to trial this week. however i am 100% certain he didnt do it as he was with me at the time!
Yet he has been arrested for it, there apparently was only the victim at the scene of the crime and no other witnesses.
This person has known my son for several years and named it as being him, and did a id parade and identified the person as my son as commiting the assault to him.
How does this stand in a court of law and trial? im standing as a witness to give my wereabouts and my sons on the relevant day
there are no other witnesses at all just the victim and the id parade
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by confusingstuff. 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.
It will be fo the jury to assess whether the evidence you can give casts doubt on the whereabouts of your son at the material time. It's not necessary for alibi evidence to prove he did not do it; it's sufficient if it makes his presence at the scene markedly less likely and the jury not sure of guilt.The 'perfect' alibi is commonly the one which the jury distrust; it's just too good. And the prosecution always have to prove presence and the elements of the offence, beyond reasonable doubt;
That the victim knows your son and named him is unhelpful, but, even so, identification evidence is always subject to great scrutiny and a warning from the judge pointing out the difficulties it presents. We have all had the experience of 'recognising' someone we know and see somewhere, only to find that it's not them. Whether that is ever applicable in this case depends on the circumstances; obviously a clear sustained view of a 'friend' who then attacks another in the heat of an argument, say, is obviously a different matter on identification and has to be challenged on another basis (malice of victim, invention,self defence etc) as distinct from a very brief view, in difficult conditions and genuine mistake.
The problem with alibi is that, as the defendant maintains that he was elsewhere then it is not possible , or not easy, to run another defence with it. He can't say"I was not there but if, which is not admitted, I was then it was self-defence" ! If the jury finds him present but lying about it, they have the unchallenged account of the victim, with any embellishments and self-justification that may contain.
That the victim knows your son and named him is unhelpful, but, even so, identification evidence is always subject to great scrutiny and a warning from the judge pointing out the difficulties it presents. We have all had the experience of 'recognising' someone we know and see somewhere, only to find that it's not them. Whether that is ever applicable in this case depends on the circumstances; obviously a clear sustained view of a 'friend' who then attacks another in the heat of an argument, say, is obviously a different matter on identification and has to be challenged on another basis (malice of victim, invention,self defence etc) as distinct from a very brief view, in difficult conditions and genuine mistake.
The problem with alibi is that, as the defendant maintains that he was elsewhere then it is not possible , or not easy, to run another defence with it. He can't say"I was not there but if, which is not admitted, I was then it was self-defence" ! If the jury finds him present but lying about it, they have the unchallenged account of the victim, with any embellishments and self-justification that may contain.
its my sons first charge, he never been in trouble before,
i just know im pretty hot on security in our house since a while ago my younger sons kidnap then recently 14 armed men charged our house and smashed it to pieces, we was then moved with help of social services but i been scared since so my locks are always locked even in daylight hours
i just know im pretty hot on security in our house since a while ago my younger sons kidnap then recently 14 armed men charged our house and smashed it to pieces, we was then moved with help of social services but i been scared since so my locks are always locked even in daylight hours
Reading 'between the lines' here but your family do not sound like the ordinary 'man in the street' type people.
A son kidnapped, 14 armed men attack and destroy your house, you are moved to a new location for protection ,now the other son is accused of S18 GBH with intent ! There must be some background to all this. Sounds like you have fallen foul of a drug gang !
A son kidnapped, 14 armed men attack and destroy your house, you are moved to a new location for protection ,now the other son is accused of S18 GBH with intent ! There must be some background to all this. Sounds like you have fallen foul of a drug gang !
It appears that, unless there's something you haven't said, that your son would have had a prima facie right to bail under s.4 Bail Act. Therefore there must have been an overwhelming reason to remand him in custody. The usual grounds for remand are that he would fail to surrender to court if given bail, would commit an offence on bail, would interfere with witnesses on bail or should be remanded for his own protection. Has your son failed to turn up to court before or has he been threatened/attacked by the victim or his family?
As several people have said, unless you were up with him at 2am then you aren't an alibi, as you would have been in another room asleep. However, if the only evidence is ID evidence from the victim, ask your solicitor about the possibility of challenging the evidence under the Turnbull guidelines, as the victim had been assaulted, it happened in darkness etc. If it is accepted, the judge will tell the jury to be aware that ID evidence is very unreliable or may rule the evidence inadmissible. I don't want to get your hopes up but it is a possibility.
If he is found guilty then unfortunately he's in a lot of trouble - the max sentence for s.18 is life. The very lowest he would receive is around 4 years, but if there are aggravating factors it would be significantly more.
If you want to know a bit more about Turnbull just ask.
As several people have said, unless you were up with him at 2am then you aren't an alibi, as you would have been in another room asleep. However, if the only evidence is ID evidence from the victim, ask your solicitor about the possibility of challenging the evidence under the Turnbull guidelines, as the victim had been assaulted, it happened in darkness etc. If it is accepted, the judge will tell the jury to be aware that ID evidence is very unreliable or may rule the evidence inadmissible. I don't want to get your hopes up but it is a possibility.
If he is found guilty then unfortunately he's in a lot of trouble - the max sentence for s.18 is life. The very lowest he would receive is around 4 years, but if there are aggravating factors it would be significantly more.
If you want to know a bit more about Turnbull just ask.
basically he was remanded cause it took the police several months to find him to arrest him, they never came here to ask not even once. and the guy who was assaulted has said that he knows it was my son due to a tooth missing, yet he knows my son has a tooth missing as he has known him years and he lost his tooth when he was 11 he fell off his bike.
and yes could you explain turnbull please
and yes could you explain turnbull please
Oh right, so obviously they convinced the court that there was a high chance he would FTS as they couldn't find him in the first place?
With regard to Turnbull, ID evidence is notoriously unreliable. People think they have seen things that often they didn't see. If the Crown's case is based wholly or substantially on ID evidence, as seems to be the case here, the judge will warn the jury to be cautious when considering their verdict on the strength of such evidence.
You could challenge the ID evidence for a number of reasons, such as it was 2am and thus was dark, or V did not see his attackers face for long enough to be certain. Also, V is the only witness providing ID evidence - therefore he's not impartial. Also, even though V knew your son and he was not a stranger, he could still have misidentified him - think of all the times you've been in the street and seen somebody you know, only to find when you see them properly that it isn't them. Google 'Turnbull directions' and have a good read of what comes up, or just talk to your solicitor.
In my experience, cases that rely solely on ID evidence are on shaky ground. I would definitely recommend that you talk to your solicitor about challenging the ID under Turnbull as you are very unlikely to succeed with alibi evidence.
With regard to Turnbull, ID evidence is notoriously unreliable. People think they have seen things that often they didn't see. If the Crown's case is based wholly or substantially on ID evidence, as seems to be the case here, the judge will warn the jury to be cautious when considering their verdict on the strength of such evidence.
You could challenge the ID evidence for a number of reasons, such as it was 2am and thus was dark, or V did not see his attackers face for long enough to be certain. Also, V is the only witness providing ID evidence - therefore he's not impartial. Also, even though V knew your son and he was not a stranger, he could still have misidentified him - think of all the times you've been in the street and seen somebody you know, only to find when you see them properly that it isn't them. Google 'Turnbull directions' and have a good read of what comes up, or just talk to your solicitor.
In my experience, cases that rely solely on ID evidence are on shaky ground. I would definitely recommend that you talk to your solicitor about challenging the ID under Turnbull as you are very unlikely to succeed with alibi evidence.
I had a similar case and charge against me, went it finally went to court and the 2 witness stood up and said it was me, the judge through the case out before i even took the stand saying there wasn't enough evidence!
You have 1 witness saying it was your son in a park at 2.00am in the morning when it was dark! Even if the guy that helped the victim turned up and said it was your son (which might happen), i still think the CPS case is weak unless i'm missing something here.
You have 1 witness saying it was your son in a park at 2.00am in the morning when it was dark! Even if the guy that helped the victim turned up and said it was your son (which might happen), i still think the CPS case is weak unless i'm missing something here.
hi confusing. Personally i think the cps would have thrown this out time ago! Seek further legal advice by using the free half hour solicitors offer. To me it does seem like there is not enough evidence to convict and why was the witness of the victim a witness when you said nobody was there? has this witness said he saw your son attack the victim? This is very confusing but in my opinion the evidence does not stand and the possibility of him being remanded could be for safety. I dont want to scare you but when i was reading this and reading the comments it seems like a set up to me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.