Arested For Gbh With Intent

[rehtnap]

i was arrested for gbh with intent by the seriuos crime squad 3 months ago.when i was with the duty solicitor at the station he told me he had seen the paperwork and at that time they didnt have a person who had gbh done to them. i was interviewed and just answered no reply as instructed and 12 hours later alowed home on bail. when i was arrested they siezed my computers ,phone and memory sticks.i will add ive had a sexual risk order last year for a month and a half for threats to infect and i was tagged for a short while but they didnt make the order full and the tag was removed
my first question is how can they arrest me if they dont have a person who accuses me.
the second one is when i was due to answere bail a couple of days ago the officer dealing with me said he was releasing me from bail and i didnt need to attend.he didnt de arrest me or say i wasnt going to be charged just released from bail. he did say they are still waiting for the computers to be analized and that could take some time. is it a normal thing to be released from bail whilst they are still investigating and does it mean im still under arest for the gbh i thought once on bail they either charged you or released you without charge but all i have is been released from the requirement of bail

[Buenchico]

>>> how can they arrest me if they dont have a person who accuses me

If, for example, they've got CCTV images of someone (who looks very much like you) attacking another person in a way that seems to leave the other person with serious injuries (making a 'GBH' charge appropriate) and the CCTV also shows that a weapon was selected and used for the attack (making 'with intent' appropriate), the police (together with the CPS) can pursue potential Section 18 charges against you. (In practice though, without direct evidence as to the extent of the injuries sustained by the victim, they might have to settle for an 'ABH' charge, rather than a 'GBH' one).



>>> does it mean im still under arest for the gbh

You were 'de-arrested' at the moment that you were granted bail, so the subject of 'arrest' simply doesn't come into it.

With lengthy enquiries the police often require people to answer bail but then (because their enquiries aren't complete) simply re-bail the person to attend at a future date. That can happen several times, causing inconvenience to the alleged offender [such as repeatedly having to take time off work] and unnecessary paperwork for the police. There has been much criticism of that way of doing things and now, unless there's a particular reason for the person to be on bail (such as to ensure that certain conditions are met), it's regarded as far better for everyone if the alleged offender is simply released from bail.

That doesn't prevent the police from continuing with their enquiries (such as having electronic devices subjected to forensic investigation). Neither does it prevent them from re-arresting the subject if such investigations find evidence of a criminal offence at a later date.

[Peter Pedant]

I couldnt really work out what was going on
thx Chris
I think he needs a lawyer TBH

[rehtnap]

thanks that makes more sense of the being released from bail.i used the duty solicitor when arrested and hes not the best at getting back to me with answeres,when something happens next ill find a decent lawer.
As far as the gbh goes the exact offence i was arrested for was gbh with intent to transmit hiv. not a light offence i know and a complicated one but they havnt got anybody who has accused me so i was confused as to how they could arrest me.when i was questioned they never mentioned an accuser or asked me about anyone and there certainly isnt any cctv or anything of that sort.when i was given the sexual risk order i was in a mental unit under section and i was told i had made threats to infect but no more action than threats. i dont remember what threats i made my memory is screwed and mixed up.that was last year in july and the order was removed in september.when the order was granted the magistrates refused everything the police had asked for exept the tag which goes in my favour.it was why the order was not made final as without any restrictions the tag served no reasonable purpose as the super solicitor i had pointed out to them. i was not arrested until june this year which is a fair amount of time later.
i assume if they cannot bring a accuser forward then theres no charge to answere with gbh as in you cant be accused of gbh to person unknown. i know the previous risk order doesnt help having been granted in the first place.im guessing then the original reason for my arrest isnt strong enough to be charged and they are hoping to find something on my computer to incriminate me.
is there an offence of threataning to infect but not directly aimed at a specific person ie a general threat. thats the only thing i can see they might have

[Buenchico]

While deliberately infecting someone with HIV can constitute 'GBH'
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/intentional_or_reckless_sexual_transmission_of_infection_guidance/
there's no specific offence of either 'threatening to infect' or 'threatening GBH'.

A threat to cause violence (including 'GBH', whether by infection or otherwise) would most usually be dealt with under Section 4 (or, for persistent threats, Section 4a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, relating to 'public order'. However any threat made within a 'dwelling place' is exempt from the provisions of that legislation.

Further, if the threat was made electronically (by phone, text or email), separate legislation (relating to 'malicious communications') might be used to secure a conviction before the courts. (Perhaps that's why the contents of your phone, computer, etc are considered potentially relevant by the police?)

[rehtnap]

thanks for that. i spoke to a solicitor today who had more knowlage of such cases and he explained that if they dont have a accuser then gbh either with or without intent is not possible as simply there has been no gbh.he sent me this short explination
To secure a guilty verdict for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm or injury, the prosecution would also need to prove that the person with HIV deliberately planned to pass HIV on and succeeded in doing so. It is also possible to be prosecuted for attempting to intentionally transmit HIV. However, proving that someone planned to intentionally give another person HIV is extremely difficult. Allegations of this kind are extremely rare and there have been no prosecutions for intentional (or attempted intentional) transmission so far.the charge of attempting to comit gbh with intent to infect is a s 18 offence and would most like ly be either a cat 2 or 1 at sentecing.
im not out of the woods yet as as ive said before ive had a sexual risk order for direct threat to infect which ive been told was both by verbal and email to health care staff specificaly detailing intent..the brief said that if they do locate a person willing toput in a complaint then the charge of attempting to comit gbh with intent could be brought as they effectivly have a written and verbal confession.he said it would also be easier than trying to prove actual transmition as all they need is someone who i had unprotected sex with even if they didnt get hiv to say or prove i didnt reveal my status but that involves the problem of my word against his as to whether i told him unless theres something like an email saying im negative..bit iffy with my already threats to infect.
i will say that i have mental health problems and can act without remembering but as he said if its on an email then its in writing the only hope would be to go for deminished resonsibility which if approved would see me detained in a secure mental hospital.
its all complicated and yes although been released from bail i still have the computers to be analized and they will be looking for direct contact details or emails ect and i can remember whats on one of them i had used it in a while.
the bad news was he told me i was half way to been charged with attempted intentional gbh and with the evidence they have already then if they find a accuserfrom my computers where i havnt told them of my stus it could be the first case of attempted gbh with intent to transmit in the uk oh joy