Shopping & Style6 mins ago
Likely Charge For Gbh With Intent?
My ex partner is currently being held on remand, CPS are looking to charge him with GBH with intent, threats to kill, criminal damage and malicious communications.
He forced his way into my home whilst drunk and on drugs, took my phone and keys and between the hours of 10pm and 7am repeatedly attacked me whilst my son was in bed.
I was left with a minor fracture to my wrist, fractured ribs from being kicked, ligament/tendon damage to my arm and fingers, chunks of hair missing and multiple bruises including a black eye. He also held a knife to my throat but didn’t use it.
I’m unaware if he has any previous convictions or allegations, he had admitted to being in my home but claims I willingly gave him my phone and keys and that he didn’t assault me.
He is due in court for a plea hearing (I assume) in 3 weeks time and CPS anticipate a not guilty plea.
Can anyone advise if the charge is likely to stick and if he is likely to get a custodial sentence and if so how long it could be please?
He forced his way into my home whilst drunk and on drugs, took my phone and keys and between the hours of 10pm and 7am repeatedly attacked me whilst my son was in bed.
I was left with a minor fracture to my wrist, fractured ribs from being kicked, ligament/tendon damage to my arm and fingers, chunks of hair missing and multiple bruises including a black eye. He also held a knife to my throat but didn’t use it.
I’m unaware if he has any previous convictions or allegations, he had admitted to being in my home but claims I willingly gave him my phone and keys and that he didn’t assault me.
He is due in court for a plea hearing (I assume) in 3 weeks time and CPS anticipate a not guilty plea.
Can anyone advise if the charge is likely to stick and if he is likely to get a custodial sentence and if so how long it could be please?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zanon. 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.
The first test for the CPS, when determining the appropriate charge, is to examine the level of injuries. You injuries are consistent with those for which a charge of 'GBH' would be deemed appropriate.
Once that has been decided upon, the next thing that the CPS has to consider is to whether adding 'with intent' to the charge (taking it from 'Section 20' to 'Section 18) is appropriate. As I read it, the 'intent' element was present, therefore the more serious 'Section 18' charge will be used:
https:/
You ask if the charge is likely to stick. Based upon the information you've given to us, the answer would seem undoubtedly to be 'Yes'.
When determining the appropriate sentence, the judge has to consider both 'harm' and 'culpability, to determine whether each of those factors should be classed as higher or lower. That will provide him/her with a 'starting point' sentence, from which he/she can vary the sentence upwards or downwards but only within fixed parameters.
As your former partner kicked you, that's likely to push 'culpability' into the 'higher' classification, because a shod foot is regarded as a 'weapon' for sentencing purposes.
The 'harm' factor might be seen as 'lower' though because, despite the level of your injuries, they still weren't as serious as the very worst GBH cases are (where, for example, the victim suffers brain injuries that leave them requiring 24 hour care for the rest of their lives).
With one of the two factors being 'higher' but the other being 'lower', the judge has to work up or down from a 'starting point' sentence of 6 years imprisonment for an offender who was convicted after a trial or 4 years for an offender who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
For an offender found guilty after a trial (with one 'higher' and one 'lower' factor being taken into account), the minimum sentence a judge can pass is one of 5 years imprisonment, with the maximum being 9 years.
For an offender who has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity (again, with one 'higher' and one 'lower' factor), the minimum sentence is one of 3 years 4 months, whereas the maximum is 6 years.
Sentences of above 2 years imprisonment can't be suspended. They must always result in immediate custody. The actual time spent in prison is usually half of the nominal sentence, with the offender being 'on licence' for the rest of the term.
Based upon the limited information we've got (because, for example, we don't know about any previous offences), and assuming your ex partner pleads guilty straight away, my best guess is that your ex partner will be sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, meaning that he'll actually be 'banged up' for 2 years.
https:/
Once that has been decided upon, the next thing that the CPS has to consider is to whether adding 'with intent' to the charge (taking it from 'Section 20' to 'Section 18) is appropriate. As I read it, the 'intent' element was present, therefore the more serious 'Section 18' charge will be used:
https:/
You ask if the charge is likely to stick. Based upon the information you've given to us, the answer would seem undoubtedly to be 'Yes'.
When determining the appropriate sentence, the judge has to consider both 'harm' and 'culpability, to determine whether each of those factors should be classed as higher or lower. That will provide him/her with a 'starting point' sentence, from which he/she can vary the sentence upwards or downwards but only within fixed parameters.
As your former partner kicked you, that's likely to push 'culpability' into the 'higher' classification, because a shod foot is regarded as a 'weapon' for sentencing purposes.
The 'harm' factor might be seen as 'lower' though because, despite the level of your injuries, they still weren't as serious as the very worst GBH cases are (where, for example, the victim suffers brain injuries that leave them requiring 24 hour care for the rest of their lives).
With one of the two factors being 'higher' but the other being 'lower', the judge has to work up or down from a 'starting point' sentence of 6 years imprisonment for an offender who was convicted after a trial or 4 years for an offender who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
For an offender found guilty after a trial (with one 'higher' and one 'lower' factor being taken into account), the minimum sentence a judge can pass is one of 5 years imprisonment, with the maximum being 9 years.
For an offender who has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity (again, with one 'higher' and one 'lower' factor), the minimum sentence is one of 3 years 4 months, whereas the maximum is 6 years.
Sentences of above 2 years imprisonment can't be suspended. They must always result in immediate custody. The actual time spent in prison is usually half of the nominal sentence, with the offender being 'on licence' for the rest of the term.
Based upon the limited information we've got (because, for example, we don't know about any previous offences), and assuming your ex partner pleads guilty straight away, my best guess is that your ex partner will be sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, meaning that he'll actually be 'banged up' for 2 years.
https:/
Just a quick PS from me:
If your partner insists upon sticking with his 'not guilty' plea (almost certainly against any legal advice that he might receive), my 'best guess' for his sentence increases to one of 6 years imprisonment. That would mean that he'd actually be 'inside' for three years, followed by a further three years 'on licence'. (If he then broke any of the conditions of his licence, he could be returned to prison to serve out the remaining three years there).
If your partner insists upon sticking with his 'not guilty' plea (almost certainly against any legal advice that he might receive), my 'best guess' for his sentence increases to one of 6 years imprisonment. That would mean that he'd actually be 'inside' for three years, followed by a further three years 'on licence'. (If he then broke any of the conditions of his licence, he could be returned to prison to serve out the remaining three years there).
-- answer removed --
//You ask if the charge is likely to stick. Based upon the information you've given to us, the answer would seem undoubtedly to be 'Yes'.//
With the proviso that if he does maintain his Not Guilty plea you will be required to attend court to testify against him. If you don't, it almost certainly won't.
You should also take on board the possibility that the CPS will reduce the charge (either to S20 - GBH without intent - or to ABH) in return for a guilty plea.
With the proviso that if he does maintain his Not Guilty plea you will be required to attend court to testify against him. If you don't, it almost certainly won't.
You should also take on board the possibility that the CPS will reduce the charge (either to S20 - GBH without intent - or to ABH) in return for a guilty plea.
//...but I can't see how that catalogue of injuries could ever be classed as ABH.//
Nor can I 'Chico. Nor would anybody reading the CPS charging guidance. But strange things happen with assault charges when it comes to the CPS having to run a trial, particularly where Domestic Violence is concerned (as this one is).
I once saw a case which, according to the evidence, was clearly GBH. The defendant was charged with ABH when he first appeared in the Magistrates' Court. It is very likely the Magistrates would have declined jurisdiction and sent the matter to the Crown Court. However, before it got that far, the defence advocate asked for some time to speak to the prosecutor (who was an agent not directly employed by the CPS). After a bit of telephone to-ing and fro-ing between her and those instructing her in the CPS, a guilty plea to Common Assault was accepted.
That was also a DV matter. Heavy on the mind of the CPS will be their experience that, despite the alleged victim's assurance that she will support a prosecution and give evidence if required, very often, especially if the matter goes to Crown Court a year later (or probably nearer two at present), that support may not be so forthcoming. The victim will have hopefully moved on and the last thing she wants to do is to have to confront her attacker across a courtroom and then be discredited in all manner of ways by the defendant's advocate.
Justice and DV do not, unfortunately, always go hand in hand.
Nor can I 'Chico. Nor would anybody reading the CPS charging guidance. But strange things happen with assault charges when it comes to the CPS having to run a trial, particularly where Domestic Violence is concerned (as this one is).
I once saw a case which, according to the evidence, was clearly GBH. The defendant was charged with ABH when he first appeared in the Magistrates' Court. It is very likely the Magistrates would have declined jurisdiction and sent the matter to the Crown Court. However, before it got that far, the defence advocate asked for some time to speak to the prosecutor (who was an agent not directly employed by the CPS). After a bit of telephone to-ing and fro-ing between her and those instructing her in the CPS, a guilty plea to Common Assault was accepted.
That was also a DV matter. Heavy on the mind of the CPS will be their experience that, despite the alleged victim's assurance that she will support a prosecution and give evidence if required, very often, especially if the matter goes to Crown Court a year later (or probably nearer two at present), that support may not be so forthcoming. The victim will have hopefully moved on and the last thing she wants to do is to have to confront her attacker across a courtroom and then be discredited in all manner of ways by the defendant's advocate.
Justice and DV do not, unfortunately, always go hand in hand.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Home & Garden8 mins ago
Food & Drink9 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News11 mins ago