ChatterBank0 min 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.
Thanks Eddie51 for your answer. From what I read and what New Judge posted on the previous thread would prison not be inevitable if he plead guilty? He has no previous and would get great references but looking at the guidelines it seems a foregone conclusion? Is there a reason you think it would be unlikely? Looking for as much guidance as possible so all thoughts appreciated!
Prison for GBH s20 is possible but normally only for the worst cases. What worries me here is that if he pleads guilty to the common assault and then there is this GBH as a separate charge , the GBH sentence could be increased to a jail term as he now has 'previous' for violence. He really does need to see a lawyer who can look at all the facts and advise him. We only know some of the story here, we do not know the partners side for a start.
“Prison for GBH s20 is possible but normally only for the worst cases.”
This is not correct. In fact the opposite is true. As I pointed out in reply to your earlier question, only offences at the very lowest end of seriousness will normally result in a non-custodial sentence. The sentencing range even those in Category 3 (the least serious) extends up to 51 weeks custody. Offences in Categories two and one would normally be sent to the Crown Court. I think I provided the link to the Sentencing Guidelines before, but here it is again:
http://
Page 197 of the document (page 191 of the .pdf file) provides the details.
As I also said earlier, it is difficult to place the offence in the relevant category (and definitely impossible to consider the possibility of conviction) without hearing all the facts. But certainly I would suggest that higher culpability is present by virtue of the fact that there was “Use of weapon or weapon equivalent…”. A vehicle may certainly be considered a weapon in these circumstances. This would push the offence into Category 2 regardless of the Court’s view on the level of harm.
The Common Assault charge will not add much damage to the overall sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it will almost certainly be concurrent to that imposed for the GBH. It will not aggravate the GBH charge by virtue of “previous history”. Antecedents (previous record) can only be considered once the earlier offence has been sentenced. If both these matters are dealt with at the same time your friend arrives in court with an unblemished record. The court will not sentence for the offence which occurred first and then go on to consider the second (using the first offence as an aggravating feature). Instead he will be sentenced with totality for the two offences being considered. The entire “course of conduct” over a period may be considered to aggravate the offences, but he will have no previous record to take account of.
Your friend needs to heed his solictor's advice. It may well be that the court can be convinced that the offence was committed recklessly rather than deliberately. Indeed the CPS may already have taken this on board with the charging decision. If it was considered he committed the offence deliberately he may be facing a charge under Section 18 (GBH with intent). It may be a long stretch to convince a court that the injury was caused accidentally.
This is not correct. In fact the opposite is true. As I pointed out in reply to your earlier question, only offences at the very lowest end of seriousness will normally result in a non-custodial sentence. The sentencing range even those in Category 3 (the least serious) extends up to 51 weeks custody. Offences in Categories two and one would normally be sent to the Crown Court. I think I provided the link to the Sentencing Guidelines before, but here it is again:
http://
Page 197 of the document (page 191 of the .pdf file) provides the details.
As I also said earlier, it is difficult to place the offence in the relevant category (and definitely impossible to consider the possibility of conviction) without hearing all the facts. But certainly I would suggest that higher culpability is present by virtue of the fact that there was “Use of weapon or weapon equivalent…”. A vehicle may certainly be considered a weapon in these circumstances. This would push the offence into Category 2 regardless of the Court’s view on the level of harm.
The Common Assault charge will not add much damage to the overall sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it will almost certainly be concurrent to that imposed for the GBH. It will not aggravate the GBH charge by virtue of “previous history”. Antecedents (previous record) can only be considered once the earlier offence has been sentenced. If both these matters are dealt with at the same time your friend arrives in court with an unblemished record. The court will not sentence for the offence which occurred first and then go on to consider the second (using the first offence as an aggravating feature). Instead he will be sentenced with totality for the two offences being considered. The entire “course of conduct” over a period may be considered to aggravate the offences, but he will have no previous record to take account of.
Your friend needs to heed his solictor's advice. It may well be that the court can be convinced that the offence was committed recklessly rather than deliberately. Indeed the CPS may already have taken this on board with the charging decision. If it was considered he committed the offence deliberately he may be facing a charge under Section 18 (GBH with intent). It may be a long stretch to convince a court that the injury was caused accidentally.
what we are missing is what the 'partners' view of the story is.
She may say that she was hanging on to the car and he knew she was there. She could say she was shouting to him to stop but he just looked at her and drove anyway.
Can you tell us anything about the other side of the story?
I would find it somewhat odd if he had just driven off without looking round to see what his ex was doing, as they presumably had just had a row!
was the common assault just before he dove away or sometime previously?
Just trying to put the stony in context.
She may say that she was hanging on to the car and he knew she was there. She could say she was shouting to him to stop but he just looked at her and drove anyway.
Can you tell us anything about the other side of the story?
I would find it somewhat odd if he had just driven off without looking round to see what his ex was doing, as they presumably had just had a row!
was the common assault just before he dove away or sometime previously?
Just trying to put the stony in context.
The common assault was a few days earlier. She has a habit of never letting him leave when he wants. Her side is that he left the house after more conflict to the car. No words exchanged outdudd the property. She ran after him and was at the car before it was moving and held the handle leading to being pulled a short distance. He states he never saw her, had no reason to think she would chase him and stopped as soon as he realised there was an issue.
http://
"The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699). "
well if what he says is true
the prosecution would fail - ( on the short answer of no mens rea )
clearly he needs a good lawyer to advise him
[ remember we can only go on what you tell us
and he might have already admitted: " I knew the silly gairl was clinging to the car" which would be a damaging admission on x-examination in court ]
"The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699). "
well if what he says is true
the prosecution would fail - ( on the short answer of no mens rea )
clearly he needs a good lawyer to advise him
[ remember we can only go on what you tell us
and he might have already admitted: " I knew the silly gairl was clinging to the car" which would be a damaging admission on x-examination in court ]
