ABH/GBH/Assault

[PARA]

If someone throws a beer glass at a person who they beleive is about to attack them and causes facial injury, would this be deemed as self defence, as my friend is being charged, but is unaware of his actions due to being drunk.

[dannydingbat]

He's in bother then if that's his deefence. He cannot form a judgement on the other person's actions if he is incapable of assessing his own judgement. Being drunk is no defence.

[Aschenbach]

That's right. Drunken intent is still intent.

An early guilty plea could reduce any sentence by 1/3. And provocation can be a mitigating factor too.

The court will look at what happened not speculate as to what the inured party might have done if not assaulted.

[mastadon]

similar situation to one my mate was in a few years back. don't listen to these guys, deny everything, if he was drunk then how can he remeber throwin the glass....

[Peter Pedant]

Your friend needs a lawyer for which he or he and his frenz (you) should pay.

What he was doing was a pre-emptive strike - in self defence. This has worked in various cases but is decided on the facts by a jury.

The thing he needs now is a lawyer

[Ward-Minter]

The "pre-emptive" strike can be used as self defence.

What has to be proved under "The Criminal Law Act" Sect 3 is """reasonable force"""". That is the key to his defence. Throwing a glass sounds like he is a distance away. Will be hard to show your friend used reasonable force in the circumstances, drunk or not.

See a lawyer if he hasn't already. One will be free at court onced charged. If not as stated go guilty to a lower offence (mayde Sect 4 Public Order) to reduce sentance/fine.

[january_bug]

Which charge is he facing?

As I recall, mens rea (a guilty mind) is not needed for GBH. I seem to remember that the landmark case in this involved a woman who meant to throw a glass in another woman's face, and the glass slipped from her hand, smashed in the other woman's face and caused facial scarring. This was enough to make the charge GBH and the fact that she had only meant to pour beer on the victim was irrelevant. (Diplock, in Mowatt 1968)

As has been said above, drunkeness is no defence (Lane CJ, in O'Grady 1987)

You need to be very clear about what the charge is, and you need to be aware that taking advice from strangers on the internet is very unwise.... except the advice above of "get a lawyer"!!!

[january_bug]

I apologise, I have made an unhelpful typo.

My 2nd para, 2rd line, should read..... meant to throw her beer in another woman's face....

So her intention was to throw the liquid, but the result was that the glass itself was also thrown.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Ward-Minter]

JB there are two GBH's, one with intent one without. Very confusing as the mens rea seems to be the key difference.

Alas, even GBH (without intent) there must be a "knowing" that harm will be caused. Therefore the actus reus will be the same.

Further in your stated case, I imagine "recklessness" was incorporated into the "with malice" side of the definition. Ergo, even beer thrown into the face would cause "harm" albeit to a small degree. Then again, psychological assault has since been thrown into GBH.

[january_bug]

WM - I must say I find it a very confusing and somewhat "grey" area of the law. It does seem to be that so long as some harm was intended (as you say, even as little as wetting the face with beer), if the actus reus results in injuries that constitute GBH, then the mens rea for the lesser offence of assault occasioning ABH is all that is needed for guilt to be proven. Is that right? Crim wasn't my best subject by a long way (not mercenary enough for me! :p) but I think that may be closer to it than my last attempt!

Could the prosecution not argue that getting into a fight whilst drunk was fairly wreckless anyway!?

Given the current political climate and attitude towards drunkeness, I would expect that most judges will not have much patience for a defence of "But your honour I was so totally wasted out of my skull thatI honestly can't remember getting into a fight". And no decent lawyer would suggest this approach to a defence anyway I'd have thought!

WM - I presume you agree with me that this is all somewhat speculative, given that PARA is unclear as to the specific charge their friend is facing!?

[Ward-Minter]

well JB. As you are aware a person can be arrested for one offence, charged with another and convicted of a third.

i.e arrested for affray, charged with ABH and convicted of common assault.

Or any permatation of above, plus a few more into the equation.

Yes you are right in response to your first paragraph.

Drunkenness will ONLY be a defence under common law if "involuntary intoxication" can be proved. In the evidence we have I doubt it.

For para, I hope for the sake of your friend the glass in question was in his hands at the time of the assault. If he picked up somebody elses or even his own in the actus reus (the actual act) then he may be banged to rights. The mens rea (guilty knowledge) will be hard to disprove if he has gone out of his way to locate the glass.

I imagine that some seleceted memory will be found to account for his action. Lawyers/barristers can not lie on behalf of their client but he should be coming up with a defence.

Remember he will go to magistrates court first and they are Worship or simple sir/madam. Save Honor for the crown court.

[january_bug]

But if it does go to the crown court, at least remember that he's in England, so if written Honour will still have a "u" in it! :-p

WM - still pondering if it would be more serious if he had thrown the glass, or used it more like a bat, so to speak (i.e., had never let go of it). Either way, it appears to be only me and thee looking at this post any more anyway!

[Ward-Minter]

thee and I JB :-)

If he threw it it would most definately be "the pre-emptive strike". Harder to prove self defence methinks.

If he strikes it from the hand the "assailant" would be closer so greater risk. However the assailants demeanor (has that got a "u"?) would have to be so violent as to warrant a glassing!

Tough one with the evidence I have.

[january_bug]

Throwing it would NOT make it "definitely" a pre-emptive strike.... you are presuming here that he threw it first. If the man hit him, or threw something at him FIRST, his own throw would not be a pre-emptive strike. If he looked as though it was going to attack again, throwing the glass would be more self-defence than a pre-emptive strike.

Surely the first thing you learnt in law is NEVER to presume or assume ANYTHING?! :-)

[january_bug]

PS - If you're going to correct me, do it properly. :-) It's "thee and me" not "thee and I". Because if I take "three" away, I am left with "just me" not "just I". :-)

[Ward-Minter]

I am not a lawyer so I have to assume.

If he threw it I ASSUME there is a distance between them.

I would hardly claim direct self defence re the throwing UNLESS there was absolutely no other way to avoid the confronatation.

jan bug you are too sexy to talk law.

[bbb111]

Hi,

If you could take a minute to read this and give your views it would be appreciated,

2 of my friends are being charged with assault, one was in a fight (not the aggressor) and the other went to prevent the aggressor from hitting my friend. At this point a women got involved and beat up the friend who went to help. It got split up.

My friend went home and were arrested several hours later, as the man went to hospital complaining of injury's all of which are not provable e.g pains in neck , and arm's. Both my freinds had injury's must worst but did not go to hospital, both my friends had black eyes cuts to the body a bust lip and brusing.

The police arressted my friends and am charging them with assault but it should be the other way round. The police interviewed the witnesses of the claimants, and only interviewed 1 of my friends witnesses, when their were about 4 people who's names were given to the police as witnesses they just seem to have taken the other sides story and not acted as professionally at all !

I would like info on how to fail a complaint about the way the police are handling the case and what views anyone has on the situation?

[Ward-Minter]

counter allegations are a common place in the justice world.

get your friends to see a doctor ASAP and have photos oftheir injuries.

Muster up as many witnesses as possible.

The police will do not (or should not) hold opinion. They are there to gather evidence only. Speak with the officer in the case. (S)He may not pursue your complaint because to tell you the truth counter-allegations are the oldest trick in the book. If not happy with that, speak to the "Divisional Commander of the police station. Usually a Superintendent, but may be a Chief Inspector if small.

However, if they haven't been charged yet, hold your horses as pre-trial CPS may decide not to pursue. People often return from bail and are told No further action.

[SP8558]

Could you detail how serious the injury was? I am in a similar situation and am interested in what the facial injury is.