plea bargains

[bubbly2000]

can anyone enlighten me. 2 ppl in court for sct 18 wounding with intent, barristers have said if one pleads guilty then the other ones charge will be droppped to sct 20, Im not understanding this, I thought the barristers were there to fight on the accused behalf. If my partner goes guilty, even though at first his brief advised him not to, they said he'll get 5 yrs & the other person prob the same on a sct 20 but better than 10 yrs for sct 18 as it wasn't his first offence, but my partners first offence, its all so confusing

[zbearspirit]

Hi. A lot of British Justice is dealt with by 'plea bargaining' this is where the defence solicitor examines your case and if he believes he can get the client off he will go for a trial, but if he thinks there is a good chance that the client might be found guilty, they will approach the prosecuting solicitor and promise to get their client to admit to plead guilty so long as they reduce the offence ie Section 18 to section 20.
What this means is if your partner went to trial and was found guilty he would definetly get a Custodial Sentence, by pleading guilty to a section 20,He could expect to get a Community Sentence especially the fact that he has not got many previous convictions.

[al1623]

not sure about the 10 or 5 year thing. more likr 3-4 years.

[bubbly2000]

sorry i dont think i was very clear on what i said before. My partner has no previous, the other person involved has previous, he was out on licence when arrested for the offence along with my partner. Thats why they said he would get a long time, so to reduce this my partner has been advised to plead guilty on sct 18. But i thought sct 18 was with intent and when a weapon was used???

[sumo19]

Section 18 and section 20 are different. (obviously)

Section 18 is GBH with intent, the worse of the two. Section 20 is still GBH, but does not require intent. I.E, GBH may be inflicted unto the victim, however, to be charged wih this (S20), there need not to be specific intent to do the damage.

Bubbly, to be honest, I still don't think you make a whole lot of sense. You Say=

My partner has no previous, the other person involved has previous, he was out on licence when arrested for the offence along with my partner. Thats why they said he would get a long time, so to reduce this my partner has been advised to plead guilty on sct 18

*so to reduce this, my partner has been advised to plead guilty*

Why would you want your partner to plead guilty to reduce the time of the offender? This doesn't make sense. Or at least what you imply doesn't make sense.

Sorry but I'm not following, apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. Also, I suggest you get a different lawyer's opinion, because pleading guilty to section 18 would seem very bad for his future!! Bearing in mind S18 can be punishable by a life custodial sentence. (although this rare). Being convicted of a section 18 has huge life consequences. For example, I would be most impressed if he was to ever find a job again, and also, to travel to any country again outsude of the EU. (or even inside)

You would be banned for life from most countries outside the EU (if not all) if you were convicted. Don't forget, lawyers might be in it for themselves, and not acting in the best interests of their clients. GET a Different Opinion.

Best O' Luck.

[bubbly2000]

sorry sumo19, i didnt explain properly. My partner hit and kicked a man who had hit me. A spur of the moment reaction, not pre-meditated and no weapon was used. my partner has no previous. However, the real pain in the butt came when we walked away, his son, in his stupid drunken state kicked the man in the head. Because his son was out on licence for fightin, they said his son could now get life if found guilty of sct 18, so the bargain is.....my partner pleas guilty to sct 18 wounding with intent and they will reduce his sons charge to sct 20, so drastically reducing his sentence. As you can imagine my parner is willing to do some time if it means his son gets lesser sentence..I hope this is a bit clearer

[sumo19]

OK I understand now.

Have you ever seen Law Abiding Citizen. It's a really good film, but quite violent, but the plot is basically all about plea barganing. It's a totally different situation here, because the offences in the film are far more serious, but it has the same principles of ther plea bargaining. That's just a bit of interest!

Seems this is a big moral dilema for your partner and it sounds like he has already made a decision to aid his son in getting a lesser sentence for him.

Thinking about it, the film might even help you understand the ins and outs of plea bargaining.

Barristers can represent both defendents and victims in the courts. Solicitors are generally the administrative people who deal directly with the client and advise them. I think ths is right, but not entirely sure to be honest, so someone might correct me.

I think your partner needs to realise the consequence of such a conviction on his name. The son has already been in trouble and is on bail. It doesn't seem that he has learnt his lesson, and because your partner doesn't want this to spoil his future, he is willing to take the brunt of it. I'm not sure this is right.

Although I would love my sons and would do anything for them, I think this wouldbe one of the very few exceptions. Forgive me for saying but I would not want to be responsible or other people's actions.

[bubbly2000]

thankyou all for your comments. The trial starts tomorrow, I will keep you posted

[bubbly2000]

just to update as a promised....My partner accepted the plea bargain against his better judgement. He pleaded guilty to sct 18 so his son got his reduced to sct 20. My partner will be sentenced next month and had been told between 4-6 yrs with 10% off for guilty plea and maybe a bit more for the fact that no previous and his age etc etc, so will serve half of whatever is given. A moral decision that will affect the rest of our lives.