Sent down for Robbery and GBH without intent

[Luse87]

My boyfriend and his brother have just been sent down for 6 and a half years for robbery, they also got charged with GBH without intent and got 3 and half years for this. They will serve about 3 years in total. They didn't actually commit a robbery but my boyfriends brother took £30 which he was owed, this was even backed up by the CPS' witness in court. The person who they were supposed to have robbed was my bfs brothers friend of about a year and a bit of a low life to be honest, he started attacking my bf with a metal bar when they simply went round to ask for the money. No robbery was intended or planned and they didn't even intend to hurt him. It was completely innocent. He must have panicked and started attacking them but although he was the aggressor his injuries were deemed worse because he was the apparent 'victim' an my bf didn't even get his injuries properly checked out because he was considered a criminal. Anyway in court the CPS were certain they could not do them for robbery because the evidence was completely against this, and a robbery implies that you have planned it and you have intended to go round and use force to steal from someone. This is why they brought in the 2 other charges which were GBH with intent and GBH without intent. The judge explained to the jury that if they couldn't find them guilty of robbery then they must consider the other two charges. However to eveybodys surprise they found them guilty of robbery and GBH without intent. This doesn't add up, because robbery is the act of going round somewhere with intent to use force and to steal. So the charges don't even add up! We are appealing, as we believe the jury could not have possiblt understood the charges and also there was clear evidence saying money was owed and the only evidence from the CPS was from the so called 'victim' who gave 5 different accounts of his story and claimed that the discrepenceies were because the police had been inventing parts of his statement! I still can't believe what has happened and it all seems so wrong, I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on how successful the appeal might be or if they can just give me there opinion on this case, as I know my opinion may be slightly biased although I can honestly say they are not guilty of robbery. Thank you.

[sir.prize]

But the law says they are guilty of robbery.

[redcrx]

How did they take the money if they were busy fighting?

[grasscarp]

you say that he took what he was owed. How did he do that? Did he open his wallet and take it? Sounds like something called demanding money with menaces, which even if he is owed money may not be ok in law. If there was violence it wouldnt have happened if they had not gone there and if the other person. Why did the other person panic? What were they doing to him?
You then say "my bf didn't even get his injuries properly checked out because he was considered a criminal". Why was he considered a criminal and who by? A hospital? Sorry this story does not make sense and it is unlikely that a jury of 12 people were all unable to follow the evidence presented and that the judge would give a custodial sentence lightly in these times of overcrowded prisons. My opinion of a successful appeal is that it sounds, based on what you have said, unlikely.

[Luse87]

no, I have no idea why he attacked them, all I can think is that he panicked because he is a known criminal who has people after him anyway. There is no explanation as to why he attacked them. And he told him to go and get the money from upstairs. The law says that if someone is owed the money they are within their rights to take it and it is not against the law. It doesn't change the fact that you can't find someone guilty of robbery if you beleive they acted in self defence. This implies they did not intend it. Robbery is intentional. Why wo you go and rob someone who knows who you are without at least covering up your appearance. His injuries were looked at in hospital and he did not choose to call the police it was one of the nurses as they obliged to do so if they believe someone has been attacked. He had numerous opportunites to call the police but refused them. Well he had been arrested and so was considered a criminal, if he had reported the incident first then things would have been completely different.

[RW1991]

the younger brother (my bf) took the money from upstair after the victim told him where it was while luse87 bf was fighting with the victim it was only him and the victim that were involved in violence.

[jackthehat]

You are NOT entitled to just 'take' any money that may be owed to you........

[Luse87]

Yes you are entitled to lawfully take money if it owed to you, the judge even said this in his summing up and told the jury if they believe the money was owed the could not find them guilty of robbery. Look it up! I'm not just plucking this stuff out of thin air I think I know what I'm talking about thank you.

[RW1991]

yes he was the barrister used a fancy latin name for it. but in the eyes of law if a debt is owed and it is no repaid you are entitled to take possessions or money to the value of the debt owed

[RW1991]

how do you think baliffs work ?

[jackthehat]

I think you are, at best, mistaken.............

[Luse87]

And you must be stupid to think that the law is always right, just because it says they are guilty of robbery does not mean they are! Innocent people can get found guilty of things all the time and do.

[grasscarp]

Getting more confusing now that RW1991 is adding bits as well
"the younger brother (my bf) took the money from upstair after the victim told him where it was while luse87 bf was fighting with the victim it was only him and the victim that were involved in violence"
So the two men went to this chap's place, and one fought the victim while the other went upstairs and took his money. This sure sounds like robbery with violence to me. You yourself describe this chap as the victim. Sounds like the sentences are deserved.

[cathfromsaron]

it wasn't their first offences then?

[jackthehat]

You are talking about 'liens'..........which is an entirely different thing.......

[Luse87]

They did not go round demanding money either, it was not with malice. It was a friend! They went round to see if he had the money and to invite him out, no malice was intended at all! They are not violent people, they have no criminal past whatsoever and both have full time jobs they were not desperate to get the money.

[Luse87]

And I was after helpful answers not people making judgements and assumptions.

[jackthehat]

Well, you've rather assumed that the good folks of Answerbank are willing to accept your rather garbled version of the actual events on the night, and the subsequent court-case purely at face value.

[Luse87]

why would someone commit a robbery for £30, I was not asking for your opinion on whether or not you think they are guilty by the way, I know they are innocent. So if you have nothing useful to add please keep out of it. You have no idea what they and the family have been through, how dare you judge them.

[grasscarp]

Oh, so they went round to this "friend" to invite him out!!!!
Sorry Luse and RW1991 I see you have both just joined this site to ask our views on the likelihood of a successful appeal now that your boyfriends have been locked up. As we are unable to see your point of view that this is some miscarriage of justice you are calling ABers stupid. Why come on here at all. Talk it through with a solicitor because you dont trust our opinions. You believe in them and what they have told you happened, but the jury and ultimately the judge did not.

[RW1991]

that is only so it is easier to distinguish as i dont want to use name it was my bf the younger of two who was owed money pat of which had been repaid but the @victim@refused to pay the rest. when they went round as they were invited into his house when the older brother was attacked minutes later with a bar. the victim later shouted to the younger broher where the money was. the violene was used in self defence he just came off worse. t was only ever one on one uplanned no previous conviction for violence unlike the victim who has to one for assault and the other affray. my bf had previously seen weapons at his house such as axes and bb guns so y go there to rob him un armed?