Society & Culture0 min ago
Abh Query
Would the need for a few stitches for laceration which does NOT require a blood transfusion be greater or lesser harm?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by np181. 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.There are other factors which can come into play when deciding whether 'greater' or 'lesser' harm is involved in an ABH offence, such as whether the injury came about from just a single blow or a sustained assault. See page 11 here:
https:/ /www.se ntencin gcounci l.org.u k/wp-co ntent/u ploads/ Assault _defini tive_gu ideline _-_Crow n_Court .pdf
However, looking at the CPS charging guidelines
https:/ /www.cp s.gov.u k/legal -guidan ce/offe nces-ag ainst-p erson-i ncorpor ating-c harging -standa rd
the injury you describe is probably nearer to the 'common assault' end of the 'ABH' scale than it is to the 'GBH' end. So it might well be classed as 'lesser harm' UNLESS, for example, the wound caused a nasty facial scar (leading to lifelong disfigurement) in which case it would almost certainly be classed as 'greater harm'.
https:/
However, looking at the CPS charging guidelines
https:/
the injury you describe is probably nearer to the 'common assault' end of the 'ABH' scale than it is to the 'GBH' end. So it might well be classed as 'lesser harm' UNLESS, for example, the wound caused a nasty facial scar (leading to lifelong disfigurement) in which case it would almost certainly be classed as 'greater harm'.
It's down to the court on the day to make the decision. There can be no hard and fast rules. However the court is likely to take into account any mental distress caused to the victim on the day of the assault and possibly afterwards.
So an injury to a young guy who's used to being fights and who simply brushes off having a few stitches inserted as a 'minor inconvenience', might be seen as 'lesser harm', whereas the same injury to a vulnerable pensioner (or, say, to a young guy who makes his living from modelling swimwear) might be seen as 'greater harm'.
The extent of the injury alone won't be the deciding factor in making the decision. The circumstances around it will also be taken into consideration.
So an injury to a young guy who's used to being fights and who simply brushes off having a few stitches inserted as a 'minor inconvenience', might be seen as 'lesser harm', whereas the same injury to a vulnerable pensioner (or, say, to a young guy who makes his living from modelling swimwear) might be seen as 'greater harm'.
The extent of the injury alone won't be the deciding factor in making the decision. The circumstances around it will also be taken into consideration.
As far as the Crown Prosecution Service is concerned "serious injuries include damaged teeth or bones, extensive and severe bruising, cuts requiring suturing and those that result in loss of consciousness." (Link as above).
Statements by the CPS aren't law but, because they're based upon their experiences of prosecuting hundreds of thousands of assault cases, they're still a damned good indication of how a court might interpret the law.
So, if a victim required stitches, it's likely that a court would regard that as 'serious injury'.
Statements by the CPS aren't law but, because they're based upon their experiences of prosecuting hundreds of thousands of assault cases, they're still a damned good indication of how a court might interpret the law.
So, if a victim required stitches, it's likely that a court would regard that as 'serious injury'.
My reading of the guidelines is that cuts requiring stitches count as 'serious injury' but that doesn't automatically mean that 'greater harm' applies. The court must then examine other factors, as above, to determine the level of harm.
It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else here writes. We won't have exactly the same information in front of them as the magistrates (or judge) will. Neither will we know how hard the CPS's lawyer will push the bench towards a higher sentence. I've been in courtrooms where the defendant has pleaded guilty and the CPS have done nothing more to outline the bare facts of the case to the court. On other occasions though, I've seen the CPS lawyer really 'lay it on thick' in their description of events, emphasising how traumatic the assault must have been to the victim, clearly in an attempt to get the bench to see the case as one involving 'serious harm'. It will all come down to how things pan out on the day.
It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else here writes. We won't have exactly the same information in front of them as the magistrates (or judge) will. Neither will we know how hard the CPS's lawyer will push the bench towards a higher sentence. I've been in courtrooms where the defendant has pleaded guilty and the CPS have done nothing more to outline the bare facts of the case to the court. On other occasions though, I've seen the CPS lawyer really 'lay it on thick' in their description of events, emphasising how traumatic the assault must have been to the victim, clearly in an attempt to get the bench to see the case as one involving 'serious harm'. It will all come down to how things pan out on the day.
There can't be a simple 'Yes' or 'No' to that question.
A couple of stitches to the chest of a 'tough guy', leaving no real visible scar (and where he'd happily sat in the A&E waiting area chatting to his mates) might well be 'lesser harm'.
A nasty laceration to the chest of a vulnerable pensioner, leaving a big scar (where he'd been terrified of his experience in A&E and couldn't sleep properly for weeks afterwards because of the assault) would almost certainly be seen as 'greater harm'.
As I've repeatedly said, there's a lot more to be considered than just the level of physical injury.
A couple of stitches to the chest of a 'tough guy', leaving no real visible scar (and where he'd happily sat in the A&E waiting area chatting to his mates) might well be 'lesser harm'.
A nasty laceration to the chest of a vulnerable pensioner, leaving a big scar (where he'd been terrified of his experience in A&E and couldn't sleep properly for weeks afterwards because of the assault) would almost certainly be seen as 'greater harm'.
As I've repeatedly said, there's a lot more to be considered than just the level of physical injury.