I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Is This Section 18 Or Section 20 Gbh?
20 Answers
In your personal opinion, not professional.
Person A dangerously driving. Honking horn, overtaking blind and slamming breaks on in front of person B on purpose.
Person A stops car in road in front of person B.
Person B steps out of car and shouts at person A through open window. Person B begins to walk back to their car.
Person A says "Right" as he steps out of his car and quickly approaches person B. Person B turns around and throws a punch. Person B claims they feared attack.
After the punch, person B immediately gets back into their car while person A is getting to their feet. Person B drives away as person A is talking to passers by.
Person A then goes to the hospital later that day.
Person A suffered a broken jaw.
Person B is arrested on suspicion of GBH.
2 questions about this scenario. Is this GBH section 18, GBH section 20 and why?
Person B has no prior convictions, is of good character and is incredibly remorseful throughout.
What would, in your opinion, be the judges sentence here? (Based on the GBH charge you chose).
Person A dangerously driving. Honking horn, overtaking blind and slamming breaks on in front of person B on purpose.
Person A stops car in road in front of person B.
Person B steps out of car and shouts at person A through open window. Person B begins to walk back to their car.
Person A says "Right" as he steps out of his car and quickly approaches person B. Person B turns around and throws a punch. Person B claims they feared attack.
After the punch, person B immediately gets back into their car while person A is getting to their feet. Person B drives away as person A is talking to passers by.
Person A then goes to the hospital later that day.
Person A suffered a broken jaw.
Person B is arrested on suspicion of GBH.
2 questions about this scenario. Is this GBH section 18, GBH section 20 and why?
Person B has no prior convictions, is of good character and is incredibly remorseful throughout.
What would, in your opinion, be the judges sentence here? (Based on the GBH charge you chose).
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
I would wait until he is charged. The likelihood is the CPS will decide ABH is appropriate, rather than GBH. The throwing of a single punch is unlikely to support a GBH charge, and certainly not s18.
12:22 Thu 15th Jun 2023
The distinction between s18 and s20 is one of mens rea:
The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character might result: R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699.
The prosecution must prove under section 18 that the defendant intended to wound and/or cause grievous bodily harm, and nothing less than an intention to produce that result, which in fact materialised, will suffice. A person ‘intends’ to cause a result if he/she consciously acts in order to bring it about. Factors that may indicate specific intent include a repeated or planned attack, deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack, making prior threats or using an offensive weapon against, or kicking, the victim’s head. The gravity of the injury may be the same for section 20 or 18 although the gravity may indicate the intention of the defendant.
The maximum sentence for section 20 is five years’ imprisonment. For section 18 it is life imprisonment. Intent may often be a trial issue where section 18 is charged, and will often rely on inference, but proof by inference is proof nonetheless, and where there is sufficient evidence for a jury to be sure of this intention this should be left to a jury.
Sentencing for sections 18, 20 and 47 will result in different likely sentences and so pleas to lesser offences should not be accepted unless there has been a change in circumstances or further evidence that changes the level of harm.
The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character might result: R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699.
The prosecution must prove under section 18 that the defendant intended to wound and/or cause grievous bodily harm, and nothing less than an intention to produce that result, which in fact materialised, will suffice. A person ‘intends’ to cause a result if he/she consciously acts in order to bring it about. Factors that may indicate specific intent include a repeated or planned attack, deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack, making prior threats or using an offensive weapon against, or kicking, the victim’s head. The gravity of the injury may be the same for section 20 or 18 although the gravity may indicate the intention of the defendant.
The maximum sentence for section 20 is five years’ imprisonment. For section 18 it is life imprisonment. Intent may often be a trial issue where section 18 is charged, and will often rely on inference, but proof by inference is proof nonetheless, and where there is sufficient evidence for a jury to be sure of this intention this should be left to a jury.
Sentencing for sections 18, 20 and 47 will result in different likely sentences and so pleas to lesser offences should not be accepted unless there has been a change in circumstances or further evidence that changes the level of harm.
There are no charges yet. It's been a a month and a half.
I though GBH is just level of injury? Because the victim has a broken jaw, regardless of intention or punch, is that not just automatically GBH?
It would be a very very pleasant surprise to see it go down to an ABH, and your confidence that its not s18 is very encouraging.
I though GBH is just level of injury? Because the victim has a broken jaw, regardless of intention or punch, is that not just automatically GBH?
It would be a very very pleasant surprise to see it go down to an ABH, and your confidence that its not s18 is very encouraging.
//I though GBH is just level of injury?//
Generally it is. But not solely. Among other things, the context of the assault must also be considered. In the case of "Bollam" (which involved injuries to a young baby) it was held:
"...injuries should be assessed with reference to the particular complainant. That person’s age, health or any other particular factors all fall for consideration. The court said, “To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of, amongst other things, the effect of the harm on the particular individual. We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context.”
The difference between s20 and s18 is, as retro explains, simply a matter of intent and it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant held the intent to impose grievous harm. They may struggle to do that given that the assault consisted of a single punch.
Generally it is. But not solely. Among other things, the context of the assault must also be considered. In the case of "Bollam" (which involved injuries to a young baby) it was held:
"...injuries should be assessed with reference to the particular complainant. That person’s age, health or any other particular factors all fall for consideration. The court said, “To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of, amongst other things, the effect of the harm on the particular individual. We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context.”
The difference between s20 and s18 is, as retro explains, simply a matter of intent and it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant held the intent to impose grievous harm. They may struggle to do that given that the assault consisted of a single punch.
In this example, the victim is considered elderly but is of big stature. The defendant did not know the age of his vvictim and assumed he was a lot younger based on his appearance and stature. Clearly he was older, but the defendant assumed 50s, the man was older.
This of course does not change the fact he IS old.
I feel like a GBH charge is likely based on those grounds. But I also believe it would be difficult for a prosecution to prove GBH with intent. After the victim fell to the ground the defendant immediately distanced themselves and got back into their car without hesitation.
This of course does not change the fact he IS old.
I feel like a GBH charge is likely based on those grounds. But I also believe it would be difficult for a prosecution to prove GBH with intent. After the victim fell to the ground the defendant immediately distanced themselves and got back into their car without hesitation.
The Crown Prosecution Service's website makes the guidance that's primarily intended for use by its own staff available to the general public. While such guidance isn't, in itself, a statement of the law, it's based upon rulings made across many courts over several decades. So it's always a useful starting point when seeking to answer questions like this.
Based upon what I read there, my best guess would be a 'Section 20' GBH charge:
https:/
(An earlier version of the CPS website provided a list of the types of offences which would fall into 'ABH' or 'GBH'. If my memory is correct, that list included a fractured jaw within the list of 'GBH' injuries).
The Sentencing Council also makes its guidance for magistrates and judges available to the general public. See here for the guidance relating to 'Section 20' offences:
https:/
As I see it . . .
Culpability = C
Harm = 3
That leads to a 'starting point' sentence of 26 weeks custody but with a sentencing range of between a 'medium level' community order and one year's custody.
My guess is either that a custodial sentence could be avoided altogether or, alternatively, that any custodial sentence would be a suspended one. If, Dampbunny1, you're 'Person B' is this scenario, I think it highly unlikely that you'd receive an immediate prison sentence.
[Disclaimer: New Judge is, as his name suggests, a judge. I'm just a guy who takes an interest in the law. So his answers should take precedence over mine. However I've used authoritative sources for my reply, so I hope that my post is still of some value here].
Based upon what I read there, my best guess would be a 'Section 20' GBH charge:
https:/
(An earlier version of the CPS website provided a list of the types of offences which would fall into 'ABH' or 'GBH'. If my memory is correct, that list included a fractured jaw within the list of 'GBH' injuries).
The Sentencing Council also makes its guidance for magistrates and judges available to the general public. See here for the guidance relating to 'Section 20' offences:
https:/
As I see it . . .
Culpability = C
Harm = 3
That leads to a 'starting point' sentence of 26 weeks custody but with a sentencing range of between a 'medium level' community order and one year's custody.
My guess is either that a custodial sentence could be avoided altogether or, alternatively, that any custodial sentence would be a suspended one. If, Dampbunny1, you're 'Person B' is this scenario, I think it highly unlikely that you'd receive an immediate prison sentence.
[Disclaimer: New Judge is, as his name suggests, a judge. I'm just a guy who takes an interest in the law. So his answers should take precedence over mine. However I've used authoritative sources for my reply, so I hope that my post is still of some value here].
god everyone piling in here
yeah NJ is ... the judge
lots of cases to read
thanks boys, I will have fun
( my two pennyworth, as an ex NHS employee? - GBH is 'really serious' and I regard a broken jaw as really serious
[gottle ot geer, gottle of geer, we used to wire their jaws together for 6 weeks])
yeah NJ is ... the judge
lots of cases to read
thanks boys, I will have fun
( my two pennyworth, as an ex NHS employee? - GBH is 'really serious' and I regard a broken jaw as really serious
[gottle ot geer, gottle of geer, we used to wire their jaws together for 6 weeks])
has this been cited?
https:/
which is the bit you are talking about - charging
apolz if already cited
oh come on, slapper or slappee ?
https:/
which is the bit you are talking about - charging
apolz if already cited
oh come on, slapper or slappee ?
I asked this question on Reddit, then gave more details on it, and people went out of their way to find the case in local media sources, take the word of that particular press release and make their minds up from that, as well as threaten to report the entire post to the police jeopardising both prosecution and defence. Will not be doing that again here, sorry
no sense of humour
that is what I say
charges have not been laid, and so there is no hope of contempt. That is discussion is not limited by law. In England very difficult to endanger a prosecution by discussing it.
and also incredz there was a case where the judge said that discussion on twitter was NOT contempt....
https:/
and the catch is.... this is not a court case
that is what I say
charges have not been laid, and so there is no hope of contempt. That is discussion is not limited by law. In England very difficult to endanger a prosecution by discussing it.
and also incredz there was a case where the judge said that discussion on twitter was NOT contempt....
https:/
and the catch is.... this is not a court case
As well as threaten to report the entire post to the police jeopardising both prosecution and defence.
oh god and the police are going to do something are they?
The Beeb are very precious about alleged this and alleged that and they cant report this etc - Trump has allegedly done things. Jesus it is in different jurisdiction for chrissakes
and I frequently remind them the leading case is..... BBC v GMC 2001- so they should know.... and the upshot is as above.
oh god and the police are going to do something are they?
The Beeb are very precious about alleged this and alleged that and they cant report this etc - Trump has allegedly done things. Jesus it is in different jurisdiction for chrissakes
and I frequently remind them the leading case is..... BBC v GMC 2001- so they should know.... and the upshot is as above.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
eek !
found this
https:/
blimey I didnt think these things aroused such emotions
er is removee a reddit reader?
found this
https:/
blimey I didnt think these things aroused such emotions
er is removee a reddit reader?
and
The prosecution must prove under section 18 that the defendant intended to wound and/or cause grievous bodily harm, and nothing less than an intention to produce that result, which in fact materialised, will suffice.
thsi excludes s 18 - and in your question we are left with s 20 altho see above NJ ( arguendo) says ABH is more likely
erm I think that is your answer
The prosecution must prove under section 18 that the defendant intended to wound and/or cause grievous bodily harm, and nothing less than an intention to produce that result, which in fact materialised, will suffice.
thsi excludes s 18 - and in your question we are left with s 20 altho see above NJ ( arguendo) says ABH is more likely
erm I think that is your answer
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
