Jokes5 mins ago
Wounding with intent and intent to wound
Hi, i work in a bar and recently one of our doormen was stabbed.
A male was refused entry (due to blood from his ears) He came back to try get in but was refused again. He said"you better not be here when i come back becasue im gonna kill you" to the dorrman who refused him. A while later he returned, running with a 6inch knife, stabbed the doorman and ran through the town centre thretening people. He was immediatly followed by 2 other dorrstaff (one which was also stabbed but was wearing a stabb vest) and caught by police. The doorman that was stabbed had a 4inch stab wound, ruptured spleen and stomach, rushed to theatre and is now in the ICU. He is being charged with wounding with intent and intenting to wound. I was wondering is he will go to prison and if so how long is he likely to get? i dont want people like this walking the streets and coming to the place i work! thanks x
A male was refused entry (due to blood from his ears) He came back to try get in but was refused again. He said"you better not be here when i come back becasue im gonna kill you" to the dorrman who refused him. A while later he returned, running with a 6inch knife, stabbed the doorman and ran through the town centre thretening people. He was immediatly followed by 2 other dorrstaff (one which was also stabbed but was wearing a stabb vest) and caught by police. The doorman that was stabbed had a 4inch stab wound, ruptured spleen and stomach, rushed to theatre and is now in the ICU. He is being charged with wounding with intent and intenting to wound. I was wondering is he will go to prison and if so how long is he likely to get? i dont want people like this walking the streets and coming to the place i work! thanks x
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lotty1989. 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.
-- answer removed --
Reminds me of years ago when my violent ex-husband and i had split up, he said to me one day after a particularly public and nasty fight, 'If you come near me again, i'l kill you' When I told the police of his threat to kill me, they said that because the threat had a condition with it that they could do nothing!!!
-- answer removed --
Here's the document which judges are obliged to adhere to (unless there are very exceptional circumstances). The relevant table can be found on page 13. It should be noted that the sentences shown there refer to a first-time offender convicted after a trial. Previous convictions (particularly for violence) will push the sentencing range higher. An early guilty plea can see the sentence cut by up to one third:
http://www.sentencing...inst-the%20person.pdf
Chris
http://www.sentencing...inst-the%20person.pdf
Chris
Internal rupturing of blood vessles is NOT a wound. This is not wounding, it is GBH.
If he is being charged with wounding then this is rediculous.
This is section 18 GBH with intent, and then threatening other people is another offence. Under this suitable charge, at least 5 years in prison. Likely to be 7 years plus.
If he is being charged with wounding then this is rediculous.
This is section 18 GBH with intent, and then threatening other people is another offence. Under this suitable charge, at least 5 years in prison. Likely to be 7 years plus.
While I agree with Sumo19 that rupturing internal blood vessels should be charged as 'GBH with intent' rather than 'wounding with intent, it's still a Section 18 offence and subject to the same penalties. (i.e. the choice of wording is largely irrelevant). See Sections 50 to 68 of this document from the Crown Prosecution Service, together with my link above:
http://www.cps.gov.uk...s_against_the_person/
Sandy-Wroe suggests that 'attempted murder' might be an appropriate charge. If a person intends to cause GBH, and the victim dies, the offender can be convicted of murder. However if a person intends to cause GBH, and the victim survives, the offender can't be convicted of attempted murder. Such a conviction can only be obtained if the prosecution is able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the offender had a specific intent to kill.
Chris
http://www.cps.gov.uk...s_against_the_person/
Sandy-Wroe suggests that 'attempted murder' might be an appropriate charge. If a person intends to cause GBH, and the victim dies, the offender can be convicted of murder. However if a person intends to cause GBH, and the victim survives, the offender can't be convicted of attempted murder. Such a conviction can only be obtained if the prosecution is able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the offender had a specific intent to kill.
Chris
-- answer removed --
Interesting to know the wording doesn't count.
Either way this person should be going down for a long time hopefully. These people spoil the night life for eveyone else.
4 days ago I was outside a club and a stranger asked my friend for a chip, he was denied and the stranger subsequently pushed him and tried to hit him, before slipping over and twisting his ankle, before badly limping away with the aid of his friend....kama
Either way this person should be going down for a long time hopefully. These people spoil the night life for eveyone else.
4 days ago I was outside a club and a stranger asked my friend for a chip, he was denied and the stranger subsequently pushed him and tried to hit him, before slipping over and twisting his ankle, before badly limping away with the aid of his friend....kama
I'm afraid that GBH is wounding with intent. The difference is the word intent. He can wound without the intent to cause gbh which is under section 20 or he can wound with the intent to cause gbh which is the s18. However you must ask yourself what this persons intentions and expectations were when stabbing someone and causing such serious injuries. Myself I think it is attempt murder. Pity it wasn't one of the middle eastern countries, over here he'll probably get 18 month suspended sentence and probation, that 'll teach him.??????????
The reason why it's not charged as attempted murder is that it's difficult to prove the specific intent to kill. That's always been so, it's not some softy modern approach. You might think that saying 'You'd better not be here when I come back, because I'm going to kill you' rather suggests that specific intent ! (I'd agree). But, being realistic, it's a fact that people often say 'I'm going to kill you !' as a threat without any real intent to do that, and they do it in fights and in attacks without that intent. Now, it's a waste of time charging attempted murder and having a jury arguing about the niceties of meaning and intent , even if the witnesses are definite those words were said, in those terms, when you can charge s18 wounding. He can get life for that and the case is straightforward. It's better to charge wounding with intent rather than gbh with intent because a) it's stabbing, a definite wounding b) gbh with intent gbh requires the jury to decide whether or not gbh was inflicted and there's no point in their wasting time discussing or arguing about that, either
As to sentence, he's looking at 10 years minimum. [See the guidelines given in the link above] He may be eligible for an indeterminate sentence, one where he has to serve at least a set number of years, specified on sentencing, but can't be released even after those unless he's not seen as a danger to the public any more.There are aggravating features plus the public interest in safeguarding doormen and others whose job involves keeping the peace, and which exposes them to attacks from thugs.
As to sentence, he's looking at 10 years minimum. [See the guidelines given in the link above] He may be eligible for an indeterminate sentence, one where he has to serve at least a set number of years, specified on sentencing, but can't be released even after those unless he's not seen as a danger to the public any more.There are aggravating features plus the public interest in safeguarding doormen and others whose job involves keeping the peace, and which exposes them to attacks from thugs.
-- answer removed --
Sandy-Wroe: The mens rea required for murder is intention to kill or intention to cause GBH, so no this argument does not work.
It does seem strange that a higher level of intent is required for murder than attempted murder. It effectively makes attempted murder a more serious offence, due to the required intent to kill - the fact that the victim lived is pure chance.
It does seem strange that a higher level of intent is required for murder than attempted murder. It effectively makes attempted murder a more serious offence, due to the required intent to kill - the fact that the victim lived is pure chance.
Sandy-Wroe, your 'kniteman' would avoid a conviction for murder (otherwise than by self-defence or accident) by the jury not being sure that he intended gbh. It's always possible ! It's not likely, because , whatever he says he meant, the jury will deduce that he must have intended it because any reasonable person would know and forsee that. The law doesn't allow any easy escape.
I used to think, when a student that the gbh with intent provision in murder was an ingenious, recent, invention of the court, pandering to public revulsion at killing policemen. But it's not.. The case which we were taught about was DPP v Smith decided by the House of Lords in 1961. Smith was driving a car to get away from the scene of his crime. A policeman tried to stop him and leapt onto the bonnet. Smith drove away at speed, to dislodge the officer and escape. The officer was thrown under a bus and killed. Smith argued a) he did not intend the death or gbh, which was accidental b) if he intended only gbh he should not be guilty of murder.The court rejected both arguments as valid defencesTo prove the antiquity of this, that it was part of common law, they relied on cases going back hundreds of years ,and on Coke's Institutes ( a textbook of the C18). '
Twas ever thus.As a result cases charged as attempted murder are rare. They're cases where the evidence of motive is so strong that it couldn't be anything else [Wanting to collect inheritance; wanting wife out of the way to marry mistress and avoid divorce etc] Strangely, attempted murder is often charged when the method adopted to kill would never have killed the victim or even harmed them [ substance believed a poison but not, or insufficient dose are the commonest such]. Impossibilty does not override intent.
I used to think, when a student that the gbh with intent provision in murder was an ingenious, recent, invention of the court, pandering to public revulsion at killing policemen. But it's not.. The case which we were taught about was DPP v Smith decided by the House of Lords in 1961. Smith was driving a car to get away from the scene of his crime. A policeman tried to stop him and leapt onto the bonnet. Smith drove away at speed, to dislodge the officer and escape. The officer was thrown under a bus and killed. Smith argued a) he did not intend the death or gbh, which was accidental b) if he intended only gbh he should not be guilty of murder.The court rejected both arguments as valid defencesTo prove the antiquity of this, that it was part of common law, they relied on cases going back hundreds of years ,and on Coke's Institutes ( a textbook of the C18). '
Twas ever thus.As a result cases charged as attempted murder are rare. They're cases where the evidence of motive is so strong that it couldn't be anything else [Wanting to collect inheritance; wanting wife out of the way to marry mistress and avoid divorce etc] Strangely, attempted murder is often charged when the method adopted to kill would never have killed the victim or even harmed them [ substance believed a poison but not, or insufficient dose are the commonest such]. Impossibilty does not override intent.
1 to 20 of 20
