G B H charge

[gbjoce]

My 26 year old son found out yesterday that he is being charged with GBH, section 20. The incedent happened 14 weeks ago after a night out with a friend and he had drunk too much!. He was walking home and passed a guy from the Water Board mending a pipe. My son, drunk, thought it would be funny to lark about with the capped part of the pipe. At which point the man picked up a metal bar and threatened him with it. My son grabbed his wrist and they both fell down. The man says my son punched him, my son says he hit his head on the way down. Anyway the poor chap has a fractured eye socket, cheek bone, wrist and a broken nose. My son has previously had two broken bones in his right hand and I know his hand swells if he even knocks it. He showed his hand to the police because it had no marks on it. I guess he will have to plead guilty as it was his stupid action that caused the incedent but hopefully with mitigating circumstances. Solicitor will advise on this. He goes to the magistrates court next week for his initial appearance. He has no previous convictions. What are his chances?? Will he get a prison sentence? Could he say it was self defence? Should I try to get medical evidence to show the broken bones in his hand from when he was younger? Would the fact that his initial action was stupid but not aggressive help? Any other help gratefully received.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

in a pickle,how can you wish this complete and utter yob and slimball well,its plain to see he and people like him should be locked away for a long time,do you come from the same council estate he lives on.

[gbjoce]

Are you saying that all people who live on council estates are yobs?? I have never lived on a council estate but I find your comment objectionable on behalf of those that do

[-lawyer]

GBJOCE: one thing to note in relation to a section 20 GBH is the requirement of intention or recklessness. If your son can prove that he was so intoxicated that he was unable to formulate an intent to assault the victim then the court could consider recklessness. The case of R v Lipman outlines the defence of Intoxication, though i would look into it further before saying if it would apply to your sons situation or not.
The fact that his actions were not aggressive shows that he might be able to prove he had no intention of committing this crime. But the fact that his actions were stupid could quite well mean that he was reckless. The test the courts would use is objective in that would an ordinary person realise that his actions could cause injury.
Finally your son not having any previous convictions might call for an application of good character. Any good lawyer would use what is called the "Vye direction". But be aware that the minute defence counsel acting for your son assert good character, the prosecution will have an opportunity to cross examine your son about any bad character.. ie. if he has a previous caution (which is not a conviction) then the courts will indeed hear about this.
On a final note..something i tell a number of clients.. the prisons are nearly full. The courts are under an extreme pressure to look at alternatives to imprisonment, eg. lower sentence plus licence periods, or hefty fines etc.
The magistrates court appearance is merely a pre-trial review, which means in effect no evidence is heard but because of the seriousness of the offence an application is made to hear the case at the crown court. There is also an opportunity for the Crown to downgrade your sons charge, ie. though the victims injuries are serious, from my personal experience they are on the borderline of G B H. Thus if your son is lucky, the crown might well change his charge to a section 47 A B H, which is not as serious as the

[NORMANTHEDOG]

not another lawyer.

[gbjoce]

Thank you -lawyer, that is most helpful. Whilst I don't condone what my son did and have every sympathy for the chap who was just going about his work and ended up with these injuries due to my sons stupid actions. I know that my son is neither a 'yob' or a 'slimball' as a previous answer implied. Thank you again for your answer.

[arduncan2002]

-lawyer - has really offered you great advice. Essentially what you require is a good defence lawyer who will during his course of investigative enquiries reveiw the 'medical records' and (police photos) or anything else that will aid your son. Between Magistrates and Crown court you will need to spend a few pennies for you son to stand a chance of mitigation. A defence solicitor will advise when he has ALL the information. This one sounds like it will cost you. Although there is the Lipman case it does not excuse everyone from acting irresponsably whilst under the influense. Ignoance is no excuse in law - especially intoxication. Pleading guilty dosen't sound to be a good idea in the first instance - bit early for that...

[gbjoce]

Thank you for your answer. His solicitor advised him to either plead not guilty or not enter a plea at this stage. So that is what he did. Hopefully he will get Legal Aid as it is going to the Crown Court. He has no warnings, cautions or anything else on his record so that may help. Thanks again to all of you who posted helpful answers