Law question about assault

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garion

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephenHi

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephenHi

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephenHi

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephenHi

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.