News0 min ago
Sentance for public Order section 4
10 Answers
What is the likely sentance for this crime, baring in mind that there is full CCTV evidence, which shows me pushing, kicking out at a persons leg, and being provoked. The person didn't seem to be in fear of me either. Also the statements by the victim and witnesses are proven to be lies, which also could cause them to be prosecuted.
No relevant convictions to my name, plus mental health issues.
No relevant convictions to my name, plus mental health issues.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Antiflow2000. 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.
Pleaded guilty, since I clearly pushed the person a few times, and at one point ran over the road and grabbed him by his jumper and dragged him towards the ground.
Which is contrary to the three statements which say I whacked him over the head with a pool cue and then punched him in the face 15 times, amazingly leaving him with no injuries.
The CPS turned upto court with the 3 statements but no CCTV footage so I didin't make a plea until I saw the footage. Two weeks later I get to see the footage, and like I said the statements are all lies, or exaggerations as my solicitor likes to say. However since pushing and kick out at someone is a public order offense I had to plead guilty on the advice of my solicitor. I spoke to my local CPS about it, and they say they have the statements but for some reason they can't get the CCTV footage to play, so I'm still waiting to hear from them.
Which is contrary to the three statements which say I whacked him over the head with a pool cue and then punched him in the face 15 times, amazingly leaving him with no injuries.
The CPS turned upto court with the 3 statements but no CCTV footage so I didin't make a plea until I saw the footage. Two weeks later I get to see the footage, and like I said the statements are all lies, or exaggerations as my solicitor likes to say. However since pushing and kick out at someone is a public order offense I had to plead guilty on the advice of my solicitor. I spoke to my local CPS about it, and they say they have the statements but for some reason they can't get the CCTV footage to play, so I'm still waiting to hear from them.
In view of your guilty plea the statements and CCTV footage will not be produced in court and to a large extent are irrelevant.
However, what will happen is that prior to sentencing the facts of the matter will be presented to the court and these will be based around the evidence the police have (which will include the statements and the footage). These facts could have a material effect on your sentence. Although I�ve quoted the starting point for consideration, the offence carries a maximum of six month�s custody, so the magistrates� scope is wide.
If you disagree with the facts to such a degree that your solicitor considers it may have a material effect on the sentence, you can request what is known as a �Newton Hearing� where the evidence will have to be produced and the facts determined by the magistrates. You should consult your solicitor to establish whether this is necessary.
However, what will happen is that prior to sentencing the facts of the matter will be presented to the court and these will be based around the evidence the police have (which will include the statements and the footage). These facts could have a material effect on your sentence. Although I�ve quoted the starting point for consideration, the offence carries a maximum of six month�s custody, so the magistrates� scope is wide.
If you disagree with the facts to such a degree that your solicitor considers it may have a material effect on the sentence, you can request what is known as a �Newton Hearing� where the evidence will have to be produced and the facts determined by the magistrates. You should consult your solicitor to establish whether this is necessary.
Even although this offence can technically carry a custodial sentence on conviction, it is nevertheless highly unlikely that this would be the outcome, particularly if tried in Magistrates Court as opposed to trial by jury in Crown Court.
The onus is still on the prosecution to prove the offence, anyway, and it is often the case in these "public order" matters that apportioning guilt can be easier said than done!
The onus is still on the prosecution to prove the offence, anyway, and it is often the case in these "public order" matters that apportioning guilt can be easier said than done!
I�m afraid you are out of touch, paraffin.
Section 4 and 4A Public Order Act Offences are summary offences unless they are racially or religiously aggravated (and there is no indication that this is so in Antiflow�s case). This means that magistrates cannot send the matter to the Crown Court for trial or sentence and the defendant cannot opt for trial by judge and jury.
As well as the aggravated Sections 4 and 4A Offences I mentioned above, Section 3 (Affray) and Section 2 (Violent Disorder) offences are �either way�, but unaggravated Section 4 and 4A offences are definitely summary only. Section 5 (disorderly behaviour) offences are summary only whether aggravated or not.
This has certainly been the case for at least 10 years to my certain knowledge and has probably been so since the Act was introduced in 1986.
Section 4 and 4A Public Order Act Offences are summary offences unless they are racially or religiously aggravated (and there is no indication that this is so in Antiflow�s case). This means that magistrates cannot send the matter to the Crown Court for trial or sentence and the defendant cannot opt for trial by judge and jury.
As well as the aggravated Sections 4 and 4A Offences I mentioned above, Section 3 (Affray) and Section 2 (Violent Disorder) offences are �either way�, but unaggravated Section 4 and 4A offences are definitely summary only. Section 5 (disorderly behaviour) offences are summary only whether aggravated or not.
This has certainly been the case for at least 10 years to my certain knowledge and has probably been so since the Act was introduced in 1986.
No I'm not having a Newton hearing, the CCTV is getting shown in court, so my solicitor says.
Probabtion is recommending a small fine, at worst a supervision order. They say they can't get me insured to do community service, so it seems that is not an option for the court.
With that said two of the witnesses were clearly trying to pervert the course of justice with their statements, so I hope the magistraites recognise that.
Probabtion is recommending a small fine, at worst a supervision order. They say they can't get me insured to do community service, so it seems that is not an option for the court.
With that said two of the witnesses were clearly trying to pervert the course of justice with their statements, so I hope the magistraites recognise that.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News2 mins ago
Food & Drink4 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Federal Prosecutions In The Usa.
News12 mins ago
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.