Potential GBH with intent sentence

[mandykins19]

Hi, I just wanted to know if anyone could help. I have a friend who was recently attacked by a group of men. He was hit first by one of the attackers, however as a means of defence, he retaliated. However on doing so he hurt the other guys pretty badly, one had a brocken arm, and then other was hit in the face and bruised up pretty bad. The group of guys decided to report my friend (bare in mind was attacked first) to the police. Now my friend is being accused for a potential 3 accounts of gbh with intent. He hasnt had any previous convictions with the police, and therefore this being his first offence. He is to have a court hearing in the near future, just wanted to know what the likely sentence would be for him, both minimum and maximum. Thanks

[123everton]

Try not guilty, three into one don't go.
If that's the full story, I can't see the C.P.S getting a conviction.

[sumo19]

The thing is here, there is a boundary between self defence and then the needless harm done to others, after you have made yourself safe from further attack.

It's like the story on the news last week, the man and his son chasing burglars down the street after one of the burglars held the family at knifepoint. They caught the burglar and injured him badly, permanent brain damage. This cannot really justify self defence, it is more revenge, hence the father was jailed for 30 months I beileve. If it was in the family's property then it would be a different issue, but they *chased* him, when there was no need to.....according to the law.

A similar situation arises here, in different circumstances granted. To be charged with three counts of GBH with intent, then there must be evidence that your friend went past self defence line and more into the revenge kind of things, which is when you start to get into trouble.

The fact that he did not instigate the fight will be taken into consideration, but if the court decides that he went beyond self defence then he will be convicted.

According to the law, GBH with intent is punishable with any term the judge seems fit, and could be anything. This won't happen though, it never does.

Since it was aggravated, there are no permanent injuries, the arm will heal I assume, I would have thought 4 to 15 months in convicted.

[sumo19]

I also agree with 123 everton (like it) and Eddie51 about the circumstances of the event.

3 on 1 and your friend coming of worse would arouse suspicion! It also depends on the evidence, if there is enough to suggest that he went beyond self defencem which is always hard to do.

[Androcles]

The problem I have here is that the three guys reported your friend to the police. Did he not report to them that he had been attacked? If he just left it after being attacked, I can understand why the police view has got as far as charges. He should have made a complaint straight away, and if he didn't then, it is a bit late to make that allegation now, after he has been charged.

[fredpuli47]

This sounds like clear self-defence. Your friend hit back the moment he was being attacked. It's not a case where , the attack having ended and your friend being in no further danger, he ran after the attackers and then hurt one badly. That would not be self-defence because then he would be exacting revenge, not defending himself. (That's the kind of case that's been in the papers lately).
It doesn't matter that the attackers came off worst. If your friend acted genuinely, instinctively, in the agony of the moment, to do what seemed necessary to him and no more, the courts aren't going to say he was wrong.If, in those circumstances he does more than, in the cold light of day, was strictly necessary, the courts will regard that as the most compelling evidence of self-defence. They have to apply common sense. You can't expect people to think with the benefit of hindsight, or weigh to a nicety whether this or that is too much force or just enough ! Even High Court judges can't be expected to do that.

Your friend must have a lawyer. He definitely shouldn't plead guilty to anything ,on what you say.without having legal advice first .On the face of it he's entitled to an acquittal, and only if the evidence is quite different to what you tell us here would he be guilty.