How Bad Was My Attempt In Approaching...
Family & Relationships1 min ago
What could I get for GBH with Intent?
I recently had a dispute with my partner where we were both drunk. I had had 2 bottles of wine and my partner had had 6 lagers... I went to bed after realising I had had too much to drink, I woke up to him dragging me out of the bed by my arm and hair. Then I remember being downstairs by the front door trying to chuck him out of the house. We wrestled for a while where he managed to get me in a head lock and I bit his arm, til it nearly bled, then he got me to the floor. Next I remember him hitting me in the head with his fist and I hit out at him, trying to get him off me, when I looked up I saw blood on his face, quite a lot of blood, then he was slamming my head on the floor. Some how I managed to get to my feet and saw a knife (bread) on the floor, with blood on. I ran out of the front door, which was, and had been open throughout the evening, and saw my neighbour calling me in to her home, where she called the poilce, as I was covered in blood (which I later realised was not my own). I was arrested and kept in over night and charged with GBH with Intent (which the police are charging me with, not my partner, he also can not remember what happened, apparently). I am due to return to the police station on the 22nd Dec to find out what will happen to me. I have only ever been in trouble with the police once before, which was a caution for Common Assault where I grabbed a girls arm. Any ideas of what I could be looking at, I am a single mum of one 4 year old and I am not working. Please give me any advice you can, I am so so worried for myself and my daughter... Thanx...
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Siany82. 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.
it will depend on whether you intend to plead guilty or not, and whether you are convicted or not, plus or minus any mitigating factors. However, if you don't mind me saying, getting so drunk you dn't remember what has happened then brawling in the street is no way for a mum to behave or in fact anyone who has any respect for themselves. It kinds of begs the question, where was your 4 year old at the time?
I believe you would have a good case of self defence, I presume your partner is bigger and stronger than you and a lot of people in your circumstances out of fear could resort to serious measures to protect themselves from serious injury. It is definetly something to consider, but It all depends what you said to the police on your last interview.
Unless there are extremely exceptional circumstances, judges are obliged to sentence 'GBH with intent' according to the table on page 13 of this document:
http://www.sentencing...inst-the%20person.pdf
However the sentences in that table apply to first-time offenders convicted after a trial. Previous convictions can push the sentencing higher (although I very much doubt that a caution for common assault would do so). An early guilty plea would see the sentence cut by one third. The actual time served in prison is usually half of the sentence.
Looking at that table, and reading your account of the events, it's hard to see a sentence of less than 2½ years imprisonment being passed (with half of that time being spent in prison). However I have seen one (and only one) case of GBH with intent, reported in the press, resulting in a non-custodial sentence. (It's extremely rare and requires that the judge is wholly convinced that there really are VERY exceptional circumstances).
Make an appointment to discuss things with your solicitor BEFORE you next attend the police station. Then insist that he/she arranges a 'conference' meeting, where you discuss things with both your solicitor AND your barrister, as soon as possible.
Chris
http://www.sentencing...inst-the%20person.pdf
However the sentences in that table apply to first-time offenders convicted after a trial. Previous convictions can push the sentencing higher (although I very much doubt that a caution for common assault would do so). An early guilty plea would see the sentence cut by one third. The actual time served in prison is usually half of the sentence.
Looking at that table, and reading your account of the events, it's hard to see a sentence of less than 2½ years imprisonment being passed (with half of that time being spent in prison). However I have seen one (and only one) case of GBH with intent, reported in the press, resulting in a non-custodial sentence. (It's extremely rare and requires that the judge is wholly convinced that there really are VERY exceptional circumstances).
Make an appointment to discuss things with your solicitor BEFORE you next attend the police station. Then insist that he/she arranges a 'conference' meeting, where you discuss things with both your solicitor AND your barrister, as soon as possible.
Chris
-- answer removed --
Actually I was wrong. He got 3 years. The story is not completely accurate according to my daughter who was there and accompanied Jamie to the hospital. The girl in distress had actually been beaten up quite badly...
http://www.northampto...th-severed.5853999.jp
http://www.northampto...th-severed.5853999.jp
zbear, if the defendant cannot remember the whole event (as she appears to admit), then a defence of 'self defence' is unlikely to succeed. How could one claim they acted in self defence if they cannot recall the entirety of what happened? Self defence has a sort of checklist that must be complied with- did the defendant use reasonable force in light of the threat? (knife vs. fist?), did the defendant take reasonable steps to avoid the harm inflicted?, etc. etc. There's no way I can see that these factors can be met when the whole event remains uncertain.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Gmcd, all you have to do is raise self-defence. Here both parties were injured. Siany remembers the other person starting the violence, by assault. It is very common for defendants to say that they don't remember stabbing or cutting the complainant in the course of a struggle, or even remember picking up a knife, but they are not debarred thereby from raising self-defence . It is a question of inference and counsel would be sure to raise it and explore that possibility with the witnesses. Once raised, it's for the prosecution to prove that self-defence does not apply. Fortunately the knife was only a bread knife.It's not a knife with which it would be easy to inflict really serious injury (gbh), and possession or use of it does not, in itself, speak of an intent so to do.
It's definitely a matter of contention and one's opinion, but I am of the opinion that in this case a self defence plea would fail. While the defendant may not be disbarred from raising it, certain questions remain unanswered in my mind, and I personally do not feel that usage of a bread knife in this situation satifies the 'proportionality' aspect of the defence. I obviously don't know the layout of the house, but how did the bread knife move from the kitchen to near the front door? (unless you fought through the house and didn't mention you ended up in the kitchen) It's things like this that would have me questioning the appropriateness of the defence.
Obviously, I'm not condoning violence in a relationship! I do understand that he may have been much larger than you and so forth, and that a person may defend themselves more fully than if they were seeing harm to their property, but until I could see how you came by the knife, I remain of the opinion that SD is a shaky defence here. It is not correct to say that you should not have attempted to fight back or stand your ground, but if you went to the kitchen, gained the knife and used it, I would argue that the force would then be unreasonable (R v Bird [1985]).
Either way, I hope things end up well for both you and your (now ex?) partner. Plus, fredpuli, I'm always happy to hear your thoughts on this :-)
Obviously, I'm not condoning violence in a relationship! I do understand that he may have been much larger than you and so forth, and that a person may defend themselves more fully than if they were seeing harm to their property, but until I could see how you came by the knife, I remain of the opinion that SD is a shaky defence here. It is not correct to say that you should not have attempted to fight back or stand your ground, but if you went to the kitchen, gained the knife and used it, I would argue that the force would then be unreasonable (R v Bird [1985]).
Either way, I hope things end up well for both you and your (now ex?) partner. Plus, fredpuli, I'm always happy to hear your thoughts on this :-)
Gmcd , don't forget 'the weighing to a nicety' direction [ Palmer v R [1971] A.C. 814 approved in R. v McInnes 55 Cr App R 551 ] which practitioners are so fond of and which, in this case, the judge will be bound to give . It brings common sense to bear.. You haven't got to 'pass the test of proportionality' That belongs in textbooks, not practice. The test is not as objective, or as strict, as that sounds.
The lawyers don't have to decide whether a defence of self-defence will succeed at trial. It's not their job or their duty (just as well. The most unlikely defences turn out to be valid and the most promising, useless ! ).They are not the jury. Their job is to see what the case discloses and raise such defences as are open to the client. Here, on the face of it, self-defence is one to raise.
On the face of it, the evidence on both sides is going to be not up to much. But the prosecution have the burden of proof. What is certain is that the Siany needs a solicitor now and counsel to establish the full case. I'd be interested to know what state the complainant was in when examined (sobriety etc as well as injury). He's not likely to come up to proof at trial, that's sure. .
The lawyers don't have to decide whether a defence of self-defence will succeed at trial. It's not their job or their duty (just as well. The most unlikely defences turn out to be valid and the most promising, useless ! ).They are not the jury. Their job is to see what the case discloses and raise such defences as are open to the client. Here, on the face of it, self-defence is one to raise.
On the face of it, the evidence on both sides is going to be not up to much. But the prosecution have the burden of proof. What is certain is that the Siany needs a solicitor now and counsel to establish the full case. I'd be interested to know what state the complainant was in when examined (sobriety etc as well as injury). He's not likely to come up to proof at trial, that's sure. .
1 to 16 of 16
