News1 min ago
Sentencing for Section 20 Assault
Hi,
My partner recently went on a night out and the renowned local idiot took a swing for him and puched him in the mouth for no apparant reason (all statements reflect this). A fight between them broke out. The next day the police came and arrested my partner, the said that they were concerned over 'how far he had taken it', even though he didnt start the fight. It took the police over a year to charge him and all letters stated Section 47 assualt with unconditional bail. Since then the case was referred to Crown court, where my partner pleaded guilty to the fight but out of the 4 witness statements, 1 of them says that my partner 'stamped on his head', which he denies. The case is going to trial in a few weeks, is it my likely my partner will get a prison sentence? He had a few minor incidents when he was a teen but that was over 15 years ago. Seems really unfair that he is going to end up in a lot of trouble when he didnt instigate it.
Thanks
My partner recently went on a night out and the renowned local idiot took a swing for him and puched him in the mouth for no apparant reason (all statements reflect this). A fight between them broke out. The next day the police came and arrested my partner, the said that they were concerned over 'how far he had taken it', even though he didnt start the fight. It took the police over a year to charge him and all letters stated Section 47 assualt with unconditional bail. Since then the case was referred to Crown court, where my partner pleaded guilty to the fight but out of the 4 witness statements, 1 of them says that my partner 'stamped on his head', which he denies. The case is going to trial in a few weeks, is it my likely my partner will get a prison sentence? He had a few minor incidents when he was a teen but that was over 15 years ago. Seems really unfair that he is going to end up in a lot of trouble when he didnt instigate it.
Thanks
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Another question , you say ''recently'' but then go on to say that the Police took over a year to charge him, why was there so long a delay ?
16:20 Tue 08th Feb 2011
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Hi,
Basically, there were 4 statements, 3 of them say that there was just a fight, one statement says that he stamped on his head. The person he had the fight with does not say this. So as far as I can make out, my partner said yes there was a fight, but I didnt stamp on his head, so now there will be a trial, to prove whether he did or didnt. He is currently charged with section 20. We dont know why the the police took so long to charge him, neither does his barrister, he had to report to the police station approximately 5 times, each letter that came through with his appointment on stated section 47, until the last letter which then stated section 20 - this was then what he was charged with, I think this is the reason that it was sent to Crown Court. Surely if most statements say there was just a fight then they cant be overruled by one guy with a vivid imagination?? Also, he is still charged with section 20, if the doubt is from the 'stamp on the head' from what I've read this should be a section 18?? So why isnt he charged with that? Its all really confusing! Thanks for your help.
Basically, there were 4 statements, 3 of them say that there was just a fight, one statement says that he stamped on his head. The person he had the fight with does not say this. So as far as I can make out, my partner said yes there was a fight, but I didnt stamp on his head, so now there will be a trial, to prove whether he did or didnt. He is currently charged with section 20. We dont know why the the police took so long to charge him, neither does his barrister, he had to report to the police station approximately 5 times, each letter that came through with his appointment on stated section 47, until the last letter which then stated section 20 - this was then what he was charged with, I think this is the reason that it was sent to Crown Court. Surely if most statements say there was just a fight then they cant be overruled by one guy with a vivid imagination?? Also, he is still charged with section 20, if the doubt is from the 'stamp on the head' from what I've read this should be a section 18?? So why isnt he charged with that? Its all really confusing! Thanks for your help.
I am slightly confused here. It reads like he has already pleaded guilty - to what I am not sure, but think to a Sec. 47...?? If that is correct, and the issue is the stamping then there will be what is called a Newton Hearing which is a trial of the issue - ie; I accept the fight and the punches but not the stamping. If that is the case, then the trial will not be before a Jury - the Judge will decided.
1 to 7 of 7
