Law question about assault

[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