Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Section 18
I am not aware of the full details of the events that took place but I will go with what I think happened.
A scuffle was started by man A with man B but other men also became involved and were inbetween man A and man B. Somehow no punches were thrown, but Man A had his fingers damaged resulting in amputation. I can only think that his fingers were crushed in a door. Man B was not responsible for this, but Man A is accusing Man B therefore Man B is being charged with section 18.
Firstly, why would the poilce use section 18? Is it because they arrest people under the highest possible charge so that it can be reduced after investigation? Also can someone be charged with section 18 if the injury was an obvious accident regardless that it was caused by someone else.
If Man B is incorrectly found guilty of causing the injury, for someone with no previous convictions, what is the likelyhood of 1. being charged with section 18, 2. Being given a custodial sentance?
There was no weapon used and Man B certainly didn't bite Man A so it seems the injury was caused by an accident although we do not know how Man A is saying he got his injury. What are your views?
A scuffle was started by man A with man B but other men also became involved and were inbetween man A and man B. Somehow no punches were thrown, but Man A had his fingers damaged resulting in amputation. I can only think that his fingers were crushed in a door. Man B was not responsible for this, but Man A is accusing Man B therefore Man B is being charged with section 18.
Firstly, why would the poilce use section 18? Is it because they arrest people under the highest possible charge so that it can be reduced after investigation? Also can someone be charged with section 18 if the injury was an obvious accident regardless that it was caused by someone else.
If Man B is incorrectly found guilty of causing the injury, for someone with no previous convictions, what is the likelyhood of 1. being charged with section 18, 2. Being given a custodial sentance?
There was no weapon used and Man B certainly didn't bite Man A so it seems the injury was caused by an accident although we do not know how Man A is saying he got his injury. What are your views?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladyrogo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is as clear as mud. You are stating quite clearly that you do no actually know what happened, you are simply guessing by your own admission, you are giving hypothetical circumstances, asking hypothetical questions, and expecting some kind of reasoned and informed answers???
There is no point going into the ramifications of a charge of Section 18 (GBH with Intent) when your description of the facts are based on guesswork.
Someone else is likely to give you an answer simply to try to impress you with their supposed knowledge of the law but that is pointless when such replies are based merely on hypothetical guesswork.
Find out something more substantial about the circumstances and I will then try to give you a suitable answer.
There is no point going into the ramifications of a charge of Section 18 (GBH with Intent) when your description of the facts are based on guesswork.
Someone else is likely to give you an answer simply to try to impress you with their supposed knowledge of the law but that is pointless when such replies are based merely on hypothetical guesswork.
Find out something more substantial about the circumstances and I will then try to give you a suitable answer.
That is exactly how I feel about it too. It makes no sense.
Man A started a fight with Man B and other people jumped in to help Man A.
Man A damaged his fingers accidentally in the scuffle. Obviously someone was responsible for this accident, however it was not Man B.
Man A has told police Man B caused the injury but this is a lie.
Man B was arrested under section 18.
Man A started a fight with Man B and other people jumped in to help Man A.
Man A damaged his fingers accidentally in the scuffle. Obviously someone was responsible for this accident, however it was not Man B.
Man A has told police Man B caused the injury but this is a lie.
Man B was arrested under section 18.
Man A has witnesses to say Man B cause the injury who are also lying.
I have many questions but the worst case is that Man B is found guilty. What I want to know is if he is found guilty, is it likely to get dropped to a Section 20, and what punishment would he be looking at.
Obviously I hope that justice is done and the charges are dropped, but I am concerned that Man B may be found guilty under Section 18.
I have many questions but the worst case is that Man B is found guilty. What I want to know is if he is found guilty, is it likely to get dropped to a Section 20, and what punishment would he be looking at.
Obviously I hope that justice is done and the charges are dropped, but I am concerned that Man B may be found guilty under Section 18.
There are too many gaps in your account of events to state exactly why a Section 18 charge has been used. However, I can direct you to the document that the Crown Prosecution Service will have referred to when determining what they believe should be the appropriate charge:
See here (and, in particular, note the contents of paragraph 65):
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_ag ainst_the_person/#P242_19963
I can also direct you to the document that judges have to refer to when passing sentence for Section 18 and Section 20 offences. The sentences shown relate to first time offenders convicted after a trial. Sentences can be reduced by up to a third for an early guilty plea. Otherwise, judges are bound by the contents of the document unless they believe that there are really exceptional circumstances (which they must explain, in open court, at the time of sentencing):
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/a ssault-against-the%20person.pdf
(For section 18, see the table on page 13. For section 20 refer to the table on page 15).
With the very limited information you've provided, my best guess is a sentence of 3 years imprisonment for a Section 18 conviction, or 18 months for Section 20. The chances of a non-custodial sentence would appear to be absolutely nil.
Chris
See here (and, in particular, note the contents of paragraph 65):
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_ag ainst_the_person/#P242_19963
I can also direct you to the document that judges have to refer to when passing sentence for Section 18 and Section 20 offences. The sentences shown relate to first time offenders convicted after a trial. Sentences can be reduced by up to a third for an early guilty plea. Otherwise, judges are bound by the contents of the document unless they believe that there are really exceptional circumstances (which they must explain, in open court, at the time of sentencing):
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/a ssault-against-the%20person.pdf
(For section 18, see the table on page 13. For section 20 refer to the table on page 15).
With the very limited information you've provided, my best guess is a sentence of 3 years imprisonment for a Section 18 conviction, or 18 months for Section 20. The chances of a non-custodial sentence would appear to be absolutely nil.
Chris
PS: The possibility of 'joint enterprise' has come into my mind. That's probably best explained by an analogy:
Fred hates guns. He's never owned a gun. He's never fired a gun. He's never even touched a gun. But Fred robs a bank with Charlie. He thinks that Charlie's gun is only a replica, otherwise he'd have never gone along with the idea of robbing the bank. However the gun is real and Charlie kills a cashier. As far as the law is concerned, Fred (as well as Charlie) is guilty of murder. Fred didn't fire a shot. He didn't even know the gun was real, but the cashier's death came about as the result of Fred & Charlie's 'joint enterprise'. As far as the law is concerned, that makes him just as guilty as Charlie.
Perhaps that the CPS are taking the view that, even though Man A's injury might not have been directly caused by Man B, Man B is still guilty because Man A's injuries came about through a 'joint enterprise' involving Man B?
Chris
Fred hates guns. He's never owned a gun. He's never fired a gun. He's never even touched a gun. But Fred robs a bank with Charlie. He thinks that Charlie's gun is only a replica, otherwise he'd have never gone along with the idea of robbing the bank. However the gun is real and Charlie kills a cashier. As far as the law is concerned, Fred (as well as Charlie) is guilty of murder. Fred didn't fire a shot. He didn't even know the gun was real, but the cashier's death came about as the result of Fred & Charlie's 'joint enterprise'. As far as the law is concerned, that makes him just as guilty as Charlie.
Perhaps that the CPS are taking the view that, even though Man A's injury might not have been directly caused by Man B, Man B is still guilty because Man A's injuries came about through a 'joint enterprise' involving Man B?
Chris
Okay, now that you've given more details, this is how I see it.
1. Man B has been arrested on suspicion of "wounding or inflicting GBH WITH INTENT to commit GBH". This is an offence under Section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
2. Section 20 of the same Act is similar to Section 18 except that the "WITH INTENT" element does not apply, therefore does not need to be proven.
3. Section 18 is therefore the more difficult of the two to get a conviction under because the prosecution MUST prove mens rea (a Latin term) which means "guilty mind / criminal intent", whereas Section 20 requires mere recklessness in the commission of the offence.
4. It is not uncommon for alternative charges to be preferred, i.e. S.18 and/or S.20, however you state that Man B has been charged with the more serious offence S.18?
5. Man B was obviously interviewed by Police who, as a result of that interrogation, obviously felt that sufficient evidence was available to charge him with S.18. I of course have no idea either what transpired during the interview or what evidence led Man B to be charged with that offence.
6. S.18 can carry a life sentence on conviction, however, even I would be ultra confident that that would not be the sentence imposed although a custodial sentence would be likely. S.20 on the other hand, although carrying a possible 5 year custodial sentence on conviction is more likely to have a community penalty and/or fine imposed for a "first offence".
7. Anyone charged with either offence can expect to be tried at Crown Court.
Hope this helps.
1. Man B has been arrested on suspicion of "wounding or inflicting GBH WITH INTENT to commit GBH". This is an offence under Section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
2. Section 20 of the same Act is similar to Section 18 except that the "WITH INTENT" element does not apply, therefore does not need to be proven.
3. Section 18 is therefore the more difficult of the two to get a conviction under because the prosecution MUST prove mens rea (a Latin term) which means "guilty mind / criminal intent", whereas Section 20 requires mere recklessness in the commission of the offence.
4. It is not uncommon for alternative charges to be preferred, i.e. S.18 and/or S.20, however you state that Man B has been charged with the more serious offence S.18?
5. Man B was obviously interviewed by Police who, as a result of that interrogation, obviously felt that sufficient evidence was available to charge him with S.18. I of course have no idea either what transpired during the interview or what evidence led Man B to be charged with that offence.
6. S.18 can carry a life sentence on conviction, however, even I would be ultra confident that that would not be the sentence imposed although a custodial sentence would be likely. S.20 on the other hand, although carrying a possible 5 year custodial sentence on conviction is more likely to have a community penalty and/or fine imposed for a "first offence".
7. Anyone charged with either offence can expect to be tried at Crown Court.
Hope this helps.
Thankyou for taking the time to answer both of you.
At the time of writing my question, Man A had not given a statement as he was in hospital so the outcome will depend on that as well as other things. I'm sure the truth will come out as the police have all clothing for evidence and hopefully CCTV footage too.
Again thanks for your replies.
x
At the time of writing my question, Man A had not given a statement as he was in hospital so the outcome will depend on that as well as other things. I'm sure the truth will come out as the police have all clothing for evidence and hopefully CCTV footage too.
Again thanks for your replies.
x
1 to 7 of 7
