malicious wounding/gbh with intent

[nurseryt-31]

Hi, I am new here so please be gentle if I don't explain things very well - have read a few q's and a's and noticed that a lot of you seem quite knowledgable on matters of law so hoped I might get some good advice; my oh was attacked 7 weeks ago - we knew the defendant a little through members of his family that we are friendly with and had been to his brother's bd party that night - when my oh greeted said defendant he was quite aggressive - there was no reason for this, can only guess he may have been jealous at oh greeting his wife (he is known to be v jealous and violent) anyway, we took no notice but when party ended and we were waiting for a taxi on the street, a voice called my oh's name - he went to see who it was, thinking it was someone having a joke whilst I stood talking to friends then defendant jumped out from behind a car and hit oh over the head with a brick - he suffered fractured skull and eye socket and still unable to work, may need op on eye. Attacker has been bailed but not yet charged as police are waiting for dna etc but they said they want to charge him with 'wounding with intent' - he apparently is saying he only punched oh and he 'must have hit his head on the floor' - will it be easy to prove how he was hit, I really don't want him to go unpunished? (sorry for long q!)

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

Let's start with the basic categories of assault charges. (e.g. common assault, ABH, GBH, etc). The appropriate charge is defined entirely by the nature of the injuries sustained, not by the method by which they were brought about. For example, you could simply shove someone but, if he was to fall into the path of a car, you could still be charged with 'GBH' if the resulting injuries were severe enough. (It would not be a defence to say " I only shoved him").

The injuries you describe most definitely fall into the 'GBH' category. (I'm very surprised that the police are considering using the alternative wording of 'wounding'. I suspect that the Crown Prosecution Service will amend this to 'grievous bodily harm'). The attacker seems to have admitted that these injuries resulted from his actions, so he's effectively admitted wounding or GBH. (As stated above, saying that he only threw a punch is not a defence. It's the nature of the injuries which are relevant, not how they came about).

However, when a charge of unlawful wounding or GBH is appropriate, the police and CPS are then required to examine the method by which the injuries arose, to see whether 'with intent' should be added to the charge. The deliberate selection of a weapon (such as a brick) counts as an indicator of 'intent'.

[Buenchico]

For the CPS's view of the appropriate charges to be used under differing circumstances, read through Sections 5 & 6, here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c .html#10

So it appears that the assailant is trying to challenge the 'intent' part of the charge, rather than the 'wounding' or 'GBH' part. The CPS seem to be trying to clinch their case by using DNA evidence to link the brick to the assailant's hand and your partner's head. However, they've already got your partner's testimony which will, no doubt, be backed up by medical evidence to show that the injuries are inconsistent with the assailant's story, so it seems almost certain that the guy will be convicted.

A sentence of around 5 years imprisonment seems likely. That's based upon reading the guidelines which judges are required to consult. You can see the relevant table on Page 13 of this document:
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/a ssault-against-the%20person.pdf

Chris

[nurseryt-31]

Thank you very much for your answer Chris, some good information there and tbh it is good to hear someone else's view that the attack was a serious one (many people seem to look at my dh, who did like to keep fit at the gym and decide that he must have been to blame) and I hope that the nasty attacker does get 5 years, because he put my oh, my kids and myself through hell too!

[Rosetta]

As Chris says, I would think the courts will take a dim view of the attacker.
I hope your oh makes a full and speedy recovery

[nurseryt-31]

Thankyou too Rosetta, for your supportive words, my oh is mending pretty well, only a 2 inch scar and a dent in his head to the naked eye but he isn't sleeping v well - i just wish the whole court process could be over but I am determined to support him to bring this vile man to justice - he is 47 years old and a father of two teenagers himself, at times I have felt a little sorry for the family but not now after he has been lying and making the whole thing more stressful for my oh, am telling myself it will be better for all, including his kids to see that this is not acceptable x

[nurseryt-31]

Yes he has previous - including killing another man who fractured his skull (apparently this man had a weakness there), he was acting with another that time and apparently had charge dropped to gbh - doesn't give much faith in british justice really does it?
He also regularly beats his wife - he has been seen dragging her around by the hair and kicking her.

[nurseryt-31]

Aaargh - am so cross, oh heard last night that the defendant is telling people that oh had been hassling him for weeks before the attack, which is completely untrue - we only knew him vaguely, as B's brother, the last time oh had seen him before attack was weeks before and he merely passed the time of day with him (hello, how are you etc) - can he get away with spreading lies like this - should we tell the police or won't they want to know?

[nurseryt-31]

Hi All,
wanted to post an update - defendant has been charged with two offences;
1) Wounding/causing grevious bodily harm with intent
2) Unlawful wounding/inflicting grevious bodily harm
From reading information given on here and links I gather that the first charge is s18 and the second is the lesser s20.
He has appeared at a preliminary hearing at magistrates and one at crown court, but hasn't been asked for plea yet - apparently this will happen at the next hearing on 19th december (at crown court) It seems likely that he will plead not guilty as the police say that during questioning he insisted that he never hit oh with the brick although two witnesses saw this. Oh's flesh was on the brick and this has been confirmed by dna testing but unfortuately they couldn't detect attacker's dna on the brick (police said they didn't really expect to as sweat on a porous object like a brick is v hard to detect, also somebody at the police station forgot to freeze the brick!) When confronted with the evidence he said that oh must have 'fallen onto the brick!'
I wonder why he is being charged with two offences, I suspect it is to encourage him to plead guilty to the lesser charge?
Any advice appreciated x