Being Tried And Sentenced As A Pair.

[jade04]

This person isn't pleading guilty to the 18 as he isn't actually guilty of this charge. Hes pleaded guilty to the 20. They are now saying that this person and a friend was involved in the attack. So are trialing as pair and sentencing as a pair. They have no relevant evidence on this persons friend to them actually being guilty of a section 18 or 20 so they aren't pleading guilty to any charge where the person i know has admitted there actions are wrong and will plead to a 20 all day. So how is this fair that they wont let someone plead guilty and get on with it, purely because there friend wont plead guilty to. Do you know if you sentence someone as pair that if they don't turn up for sentencing what will happen to the other person?

Thankyou for your help

[Cloverjo]

I've never heard of people being tried as a pair. Which country are you in? What do 18 and 20 mean?

[jno]

I guess this, Cloverjo, but I don't know the answer

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question1307883.html

[FredPuli43]

Non-attendance of one? Take the plea, if not already done, of the one who is there Remand the one who is there, issue an order to secure the attendance of the other. If there's a reasonable chance of getting the other, then sentence both, if pleading guilty to an acceptable count, when he's produced.If one pleads guilty and the other doesn't , on the same or similar facts arising on the same indictment, remand one for sentence after the trial of the other.

Where one is holding out because his mates aren't pleading guilty, the barrister will tell the client that the client is an idiot ! If he wants to fight everything, fair enough; that's his decision; but if it is clear that he admits, or will admit in evidence, that he's guilty of s20 , then tell him that his best chance is to plead guilty at the first opportunity. The prosecution may not accept that as sufficient and hold out for a s18, in which case there will be a trial on the s18. But unless the evidence is very strong, they won't. And it counts with the jury that the man admits s20 and they are being asked a technical question about intent; they are inclined to say that he has been honest in that and give him credit, whilst asking themselves why their time is being wasted on some CPS lawyer's decision about intent and joint enterprise; the judge's direction on the latter may well seem incomprehensible anyway . They then get on with trying the others, and give them no credit at all

[FredPuli43]

Should have made clear that, if there is not an alternative count of s20 to the s18, prosecuting counsel, knowing that a plea of guilty is offered, should stick a s20 count on . That's convenient, rather than having the man say "Not guilty to s18 but guilty to s20".

The plea to the s20 count stands; the defendant can't say that he withdraws his plea of guilty to s20.

[EDDIE51]

jade04 in your previous question you did not mention that the case was a joint trial. It changes the situation, read what New Judge has said ^^ and if you do not understand come back and ask for an explanation.

[jade04]

sorry mark i don't quite understand what you are saying. He has already pleaded guilty to a section 20 but because his friend wont because hes denying all knowledge the section 20 has kinda gone out of the window. There already into the the trial and are trialing them both as a pair on the section 18 weather they are found guilty or not we don't know. But this is kinda saying if this lads mates found guilty of section 18 with intent then the person i know will as they will receive the same sentence because there being trialed as pair. I don't see how this is fair though, have you ever heard of it ?

Thankyou

[FredPuli43]

That is not how it works. The trial goes on against both because the prosecution thinks that the one who pleads guilty has not admitted enough. They think they can get home against both for s18, that is that they can prove that both had the intention of causing grievous bodily harm, rather than just that they wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm without intending to cause grievous bodily harm.

It does not follow that both are guilty of s18 because one is found guilty of it. Even where they are charged with acting together in one assault it may be that one intended gbh but the other didn't. The other would be guilty of s20 only.but the first guilty of s18.

In the event of the one who pleads guilty to s20 being acquitted of s18, he is sentenced only for the lesser offence, the s20. There may be a significant difference, the s20 man being given far less, because the crime is less serious, than the s18 man. There is no reason, in the crime itself, for both to get the same. The s20 man might get the same as the s18 man. though convicted on the s20 only, but that would not be usual .It would be very unusual. It would be because of past character and the prospect that the s20 man would be violent in future ; for example, he had a terrible record for offences of violence but the s18 man had a clean record., so the sentences reflected that difference and happened to come to the same.

[jade04]

yes what you are saying makes sense but what the barrister has said doesn't. Yesterday the section 20 was given to them both on the terms that they both plead guilty, well my defendant would but his mate wouldn't so the offer got dropped as they said they both have to admit to the same charge :s which no-one understood. Then the barrister said if the defendant i know got found guilty on this charge with intent he is looking at 8-10 year. How can this be he has punched and kicked somebody once, has admitted it from day one, and has no previous convictions of any offence, this is what we are all struggling to get our head round. He didn't stamp on the victims head while he was on the floor he kicked out while he was still standing. Also this person has kinda dropped a hint that hes mate might not turn up to the sentencing day, and his barrister said this does not matter the trial will still go on and the person who is left will still be charged. Well how can this be if you're saying you're sentencing together and trialing together, so obviously if one of the pair don't turn up, the trial should no longer go on. Do u think they are trying to scare or or believe any of this is true? I am struggling to get my head around and everyone whose heard of this case cant understand either. something doesn't seem right.

Thank-you for your advice

[EDDIE51]

New Judge knows far better than me but one point.
If one of the defendants does not turn up for sentencing, he will be sentenced anyway. Then a warrant will be issued for his arrest and the police will come to look for him. The warrant is valid for life so even if he managed to hide for years he will still be arrested as soon as he is found. For example if he was sentenced to 5 years in his absence but hid successfully for 30 years he would still be arrested and made to serve the 5 years.

[FredPuli43]

So no plea was ever taken to s20, the prosecution taking the view that a count of s20 was unnecessary and the jury could always, on a s18 count, find a defendant not guilty of s18 but guilty of the lesser charge of s20. That can still happen, the s20 being implicit in the s18, the difference only being one of intent [R v Mandar [1995] in the Court of Appeal]. It does not follow that the jury must convict both or either of s18. So your worry is misplaced. It may even happen that they decide to acquit on s18 but nobody has told them that they could return a verdict of s20 on a s18 count, and the defendant(s) are acquitted totally !