Law question about assault

[Stephen]

Probably best if I post in something other than spam.. dunno if it should be here or discuss anything :S Anyway so I won't go into detail kkkkk

So someone was beaten up on their own doorstep by 5 people, they repeatly kicked and punched her in the head and only stopped when someone phoned the police. Kicking to the head could kill someone couldn't it and they must of kicked her over 10 times in the head. The person thought they were going to kill her and I think they could of killed her if no one broke it up and the police didn't get called. One of the people who did it said on formspring in reply to someone who asked if the woman was in hospital, "I wish".......... MY QUESTION NOW

Could the woman press charges for attempted murder or would she have to be seriously injured to be able to press them sort of charges? There were witnesses and everything who saw them attack her.

thanks

[hah]

you would probs have to half proof they set out to kill the person
im guessing

[Black_Apalachi]

Wouldn't the police who arrived at the scene or later on have asked her; 'Do you wish to press charges for ...' and would have specified what exactly she is entitled to do? Otherwise tell her to go to the police and say she wants to press charges for attempted murder and see what they say. As you said, if they were trying to kill her then I don't see why not!

[Stephen]

They only said press charges and if she's willing to go to court. But seriously one of them has admitted that she wishes they put her in hospital so they were obviously kicking her enough in the head to try and cause serious harm. Surely that is pretty much more than just assault

[Sharon]

You COULD press for Attempted Murder I'm going to think, you say they were attempting to kill her - it's just up to what the police say she can charge for if she wishes to go to court.

[Stephen]

Also another thing that is abit offtopic but still do to with what happened.

Would you say that the police not giving a number to phone and being told that you'll recieve a call the next day but 2 days later there still is no call, complainworthy? The injuries could be healed by the time they contact :S It's like they don't even care. Surely if someone got beaten up on their own doorstep, they'd take more notice of it

[Nixt]

Attempted murder is a serious crime and the CPS will only be willing to charge someone with such a crime if the evidence against the defendants is enough to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the person or persons specifically intended to cause death. Thus, it is actually a very difficult offence to prosecute for as it's very difficult to prove that someone specifically intended to kill. So the answer to your question is probably no, she will not be able to press charges for attempted murder.

I would also advise you to complain about the police and their handling of the case, as it does seem that they are not taking what seems to be a relatively serious offence that seriously.

[Stephen]

I think she is going to complain. I would of expected the police to call the next day asap to asure that they are still going on with the case. At the moment it is making her think that they don't care and they are going to get away with it. I would be pretty scared if I felt like that. That's like someone trying to attack you with no way of stopping them :S

The police are meant to make you feel secure about things like this. Absolutely stupid.

Would you suggest contacting the local mp? That should get more notice about what has happened

[FlyingJesus]

GBH with specific intent (which I'm guessing it would be if it was a prolonged attack, and I expect bleeding was involved) can land you with anything up to life imprisonment as it is, no real need to push for attempted murder as it'd get thrown out pretty quickly unless there are solid motives and evidence for it.

[Stephen]

Went up the police station and apparently there were 2 more witneses that we didn't know about and they have a 15 page report on the case.

What could be the consequences for 5 people beating up a 40+ yo woman on her own doorstep?

[Teabags]

she could probably claim manslaughter because they could claim they had no idea it would kill them and they decided to do it spontaneaously, so unless you set out to kill someone it can be classed as attempted manslaughter rather than murder. So you don't get quite as harsher sentence.

[Nixt]

It really is ultimately dependent on what the police charge her for. There are a number of non-fatal offences against the person that vary in degree of seriousness. Common assault refers to the offences of assault (causing someone to fear violence) and battery (unlawful application of force), but they are relatively minor and given the description you have given I would assume that they would be charged for something a lot worse than that.

Next up you have assault occasioning actual bodily harm which requires an assault or battery - that is committing the offence of assault or battery, which then occasions (or causes) an injury. Again this is relatively minor - the Crown Prosecution Service charging standards state that individuals can be charged with this offence if the injuries sustained are relatively minor. Such injuries include minor fractures, minor cuts that require medical attention, loss of teeth, extensive bruising etc etc. The maximum sentence for this offence is five years but will often carry a much lower sentence. Again this varies according to degree of injury and many other factors.

Then you have grievous bodily harm. Depending on the nature of the victim's injuries, I would assume some of the perpetrators will be charged with this offence although it really is subjective. GBH can be split into two categories, as Tom mentioned above. You have GBH under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 but also GBH with intent under section 18. Proving GBH with intent is extremely difficult and the prosecution must be able to prove that the defendants specifically intended to cause grievous bodily harm - i.e. they must be able to prove the defendant's state of mind was that of intent at the time of the attack. As such I am more inclined to say they would be charged under section 18 which encompasses more serious injuries such as prolonged incapacitation, considerable loss of blood or long term disability, that were caused recklessly rather than intentionally. This carries a maximum sentence of five years and unlike ABH, you are more likely to serve closer to five years under this offence.

Sorry if this is unclear, it's very difficult to explain as there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, but that's a basic summary. If any legal academics are reading, I am aware this has been simplified considerably!

[Stephen]

They did it because the daughter lied to her mother and said that my mum hit her while she was alone. They intended to do it and they probably even admitted to the police that they did it. They are so thick that they probably think that saying that my mum hit one of them will get them off easy for attacking my mum yet the only witness who was with my mum when she supposedly hit the girl said to the police that she didn't hit her. One of the daughters admitted on formspring that they did it and also threatened my sister if she went up town at night. They were boasting about it all on facebook/formspring so we've printed it all off for the police. Also if you had just hit someone's daughter, would you open the door to a fat angry mob involving their mum and grandmother?

[Nixt]

The question one must really ask is did they intend to cause harm in general (and ultimately caused really serious harm) or did they specifically and maliciously intend to cause really serious harm. The latter being GBH with intent and the former being GBH under section 20. I am simplifying this considerably in an attempt to gauge the nature of the offence in its basic form - ignoring all outside factors such as motive and provocation as you have mentioned in your above post.

GBH is causing a wound (a break in all layers of the skin) or really serious harm as defined in the case of DPP v Smith. To be guilty of this offence you must have intended to cause harm (or recklessly intended to cause it), but not specifically intended to cause really serious harm.

GBH with intent is causing a wound or really serious harm but also specifically intending to cause this really serious harm. You can see how difficult it is to clarify the two? It goes without saying the defendants intended to cause harm - but what harm did they actually cause? Was the harm really serious? What is the nature of the victim's injuries? It's a very subjective situation.

[Stephen]

Well she has a cuts and bumps on her head, bruised jaw, bruises all over the place, this MAHUSIVE bruise that goes all up her arm. And she's on really strong painkillers because she feels bruised all over. It's also affected her mentally because who wouldn't. Your home is meant to be like a safe place, she's too scared to open the door and sometimes to even go out

[Nixt]

The physical injuries constitute ABH. GBH, the more serious offence, requires either a wound - which is a "break in the continuity of both layers of the skin" (see C v. Eisenhower if you are interested) which basically means a really deep cut (and generally more than one) and / or really serious harm which is, as described in my earlier post, injuries such as long term incapacitation, severe loss of blood or long term disability etc.

Psychiatric injury can result in a charge of GBH but again this has to be really serious. You're talking long term clinical depression or similar. I'd say the defendants should be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years as I have said above.

[Black_Apalachi]

Is this your mum? If it were my mum I'd march down to the police station myself and make it sound as worse as possible and demand something be done

[FlyingJesus]

she could probably claim manslaughter because they could claim they had no idea it would kill them and they decided to do it spontaneaously, so unless you set out to kill someone it can be classed as attempted manslaughter rather than murder. So you don't get quite as harsher sentence.

You can't have attempted manslaughter because manslaughter is a death that wasn't purposefully brought about...

[Wig44.]

Is this your mum? If it were my mum I'd march down to the police station myself and make it sound as worse as possible and demand something be done

If only it were that simple.

[Stephen]

The CID are involved now

[Stephen]

The physical injuries constitute ABH. GBH, the more serious offence, requires either a wound - which is a "break in the continuity of both layers of the skin" (see C v. Eisenhower if you are interested) which basically means a really deep cut (and generally more than one) and / or really serious harm which is, as described in my earlier post, injuries such as long term incapacitation, severe loss of blood or long term disability etc.

Psychiatric injury can result in a charge of GBH but again this has to be really serious. You're talking long term clinical depression or similar. I'd say the defendants should be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years as I have said above.

They said they are taking it as Affray but they have to decide whether to charge them or not. Is affray a good charge?

[Catzsy]

They said they are taking it as Affray but they have to decide whether to charge them or not. Is affray a good charge?

It basically used when more than one person is threatening violence on another and the whole crowd involved are usually charged.. It is quite a serious offence and probably means that it was not just one person inflicting the violence otherwise it would be assault, ABH or GBH as Garion said above.


Affray
(Archbold 29-18 to 29-24)

An offence under section 3 is triable either way. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:

unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons. Mere words are not enough. Violent conduct towards property alone is not sufficient for the purposes of an offence under section 3. For a definition of 'violence' in affray - section 8 of the Act (Archbold 29-38).

The offence may be committed in a public or private place.

[Stephen]

I looked at the factors of affray

Aggravating:
Busy public place x
Group Action *
Injuries caused *
People actually put in fear *
Vulnerable victim(s) *
Racially aggravated x
Offender on bail *

Migrating:
Offender acting alone x
Provocation x
Did not start the trouble x
Stopped as soon as the police arrived *
Co-operation with police x (don't understand that one really unless they mean they didn't run away in which *)
Voluntary compensation x

also 2 of them actually broke their bail

[Catzsy]

I looked at the factors of affray

Aggravating:
Busy public place x
Group Action *
Injuries caused *
People actually put in fear *
Vulnerable victim(s) *
Racially aggravated x
Offender on bail *

Migrating:
Offender acting alone x
Provocation x
Did not start the trouble x
Stopped as soon as the police arrived *
Co-operation with police x (don't understand that one really unless they mean they didn't run away in which *)
Voluntary compensation x

also 2 of them actually broke their bail


Well if they broke their bail it would up to the CPS to bring them before a court to answer why they had broken their conditions and possibly a magistrate or crown court judge (if it has gone that far) could remand them in custody until the trial. In these case they all usually try to blame each other so hopefully there are solid witnesses who can identify exactly who did what.

[Stephen]

It was actually a family who did it including a grandmother. She got bailed for medical reasons before they had their statements taken so they went the clever route and all blamed her for starting it thinking she will get off without charge and they'll get a lower charge

[Catzsy]

It was actually a family who did it including a grandmother. She got bailed for medical reasons before they had their statements taken so they went the clever route and all blamed her for starting it thinking she will get off without charge and they'll get a lower charge

Well hopefully the Police and CPS will see right through this and they will all be charged with affray.

[Stephen]

Hopefully :P I don't think we'd give up if they did get away with it though.

The police have asked my mum for medical records since it happened as my mum has been off work for weeks because she is suffering from post traumatic stress

[Catzsy]

Hopefully :P I don't think we'd give up if they did get away with it though.

The police have asked my mum for medical records since it happened as my mum has been off work for weeks because she is suffering from post traumatic stress

Well they will need that to help them build a case. Looks like they are taking the right action here.