Each offence has different potential consequences and punishments for someone accused or convicted of the crime. Whether intentional or reckless, the gravity of the injuries inflicted during the assault determines whether the CPS proceeds to prosecute the case as common assault, ABH or GBH. There are legal guidelines and tests that provide a basis for determining whether an injury should be deemed severe.
This will usually be at the discretion of the prosecutors or an investigating police officer. Any injury that interferes with the health or comfort of a victim can be defined as ABH, such as bruises, scratches or bite marks. For example, an individual who pushes a victim who falls and hits their head on the pavement may not have intended to injure the victim but they did intend to apply unlawful force. As such, they can be charged with ABH if the victim was bruised as a result of the fall.
In this example, the defendant may have either intentionally or recklessly caused the injury. If the push had caused the victim to fall to the floor and fracture their skull, this would be viewed more seriously as an offence of GBH, perhaps contrary to Section 20 as it was not intended for the push to result in a serious injury.
The location will depend on the circumstances and aggravating factors. Prison sentences are more likely to be given if the assault is not a first-time offence. All assault cases are different and vary depending on the parties involved, the location and possible motivations.
Grievous bodily harm is the most serious form of non-fatal assault and can be committed in two ways affecting the level of severity of offence — the difference being whether the crime was committed intentionally or recklessly.
Injuries sustained by intentional GBH have the potential to be life changing for a victim and as such the penalties for individuals found guilty of this offence are severe. The use of a weapon can change the offence that may be charged and consequently make a conviction for GBH more serious. The jury must also be sure that the defendant was the operating and substantial cause of the GBH i.
Several injuries that would be considered minor on their own can be considered grievous if sufficiently serious when considered cumulatively. Intent: In order for a defendant to be convicted of this offence, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause harm which amounts in law to serious harm.
This means that the rupture of internal blood vessels i. If there is evidence of any breaking of the skin i. Defences Self-defence The defence of self-defence which includes defending another and acting to protect property , if successfully pleaded at Court will result in an acquittal.
Therefore, a person may be entitled to rely on self-defence if: He or she genuinely believed that it was necessary to act in defence; and His or her response was reasonable.
How to instruct Bindmans Our Criminal Defence Team has extensive experience in representing clients who have been accused of and charged with, wounding or causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. Previous Post Next Post. Latest posts. All Insights. Katie is head of our Crime Fraud and Regulatory Team. She acts in cases involving allegations of serious financial impropriety, often with an international dimension, including fraud, money laundering, insider dealing, bribery and corruption.
She is experienced in acting for clients facing the most sensitive criminal allegations of all types that may have a profound impact on their personal or professional lives or reputations. She also has particular expertise in advising journalists and media organisations in respect of regulatory or criminal law issues.
Kate is a partner in our Crime, Fraud and Regulatory team. With over 20 years experience, Kate has extensive expertise in defending complex and serious crime and extradition including all aspects of business crime and fraud, money laundering, restraint and confiscation and cross-border investigations. She is particularly regarded for her skill in dealing with politically sensitive, high profile and controversial cases. Tayab is an internationally recognised and highly respected Solicitor Advocate.
Related services Assault allegations. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Section 64 of the Sentencing Code states: In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must - a treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor and b state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumed characteristics of the victim: race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence See below for the statutory provisions. Note the requirement for the court to state that the offence has been aggravated by the relevant hostility. Where the element of hostility is core to the offending, the aggravation will be higher than where it plays a lesser role.
Section 66 of the Sentencing Code states: Hostility 1 This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence which is aggravated by— a racial hostility, b religious hostility, c hostility related to disability, d hostility related to sexual orientation, or e hostility related to transgender identity.
This is subject to subsection 3. Offence was committed against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of functions as such a worker. Note the requirement for the court to state that the offence has been so aggravated. Note this statutory factor only applies to certain violent or sexual offences as listed below. The Sentencing Code states: 67 Assaults on emergency workers 1 This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence listed in subsection 3.
Offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public or against a person coming to the assistance of an emergency worker. Offence committed in prison where not taken into account as a statutory aggravating factor. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Offences committed in custody are more serious because they undermine the fundamental need for control and order which is necessary for the running of prisons and maintaining safety.
Generally the sentence for the new offence will be consecutive to the sentence being served as it will have arisen out of an unrelated incident. Refer to the Totality guideline for detailed guidance. Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions. Offence committed in a domestic context. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Refer to the Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Definitive Guideline.
Presence of children. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence This reflects the psychological harm that may be caused to those who witnessed the offence.
The presence of one or more children may in some situations make the primary victim more vulnerable — for example an adult may be less able to resist the offender if concerned about the safety or welfare of children present. Gratuitous degradation of victim. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Where an offender deliberately causes additional harm to a victim over and above that which is an essential element of the offence - this will increase seriousness.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence A close examination of the facts is necessary and a clear justification should be given if abuse of trust is to be found. In order for an abuse of trust to make an offence more serious the relationship between the offender and victim s must be one that would give rise to the offender having a significant level of responsibility towards the victim s on which the victim s would be entitled to rely.
Abuse of trust may occur in many factual situations. Examples may include relationships such as teacher and pupil, parent and child, employer and employee, professional adviser and client, or carer whether paid or unpaid and dependant. It may also include ad hoc situations such as a late-night taxi driver and a lone passenger. These examples are not exhaustive and do not necessarily indicate that abuse of trust is present. Where an offender has been given an inappropriate level of responsibility, abuse of trust is unlikely to apply.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence The more sophisticated, extensive or persistent the actions after the event, the more likely it is to increase the seriousness of the offence.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence The fact that an offender is voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence will tend to increase the seriousness of the offence provided that the intoxication has contributed to the offending.
Offence committed whilst on licence or subject to post sentence supervision. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence An offender who is subject to licence or post sentence supervision is under a particular obligation to desist from further offending.
The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of a licence or order including the time that has elapsed since its commencement will be a relevant consideration.
Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of a licence or order regard should be had to totality. Failure to comply with current court orders. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Commission of an offence while subject to a relevant court order makes the offence more serious.
The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of an order including the time that has elapsed since its commencement will be a relevant consideration. Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of an order regard should be had to totality Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending.
Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already.
For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence. In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence separate from any guilty plea reduction.
Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence. In particular young adults typically aged are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to: evaluate the consequences of their actions limit impulsivity limit risk taking Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers. Mental disorder or learning disability, where not linked to the commission of the offence.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Refer to the Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline. Note in particular paragraph 5 for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic offenders. Sole or primary carer for dependent relative s. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered.
In addition when sentencing an offender who is pregnant relevant considerations may include: any effect of the sentence on the health of the offender and any effect of the sentence on the unborn child The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.
Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence Where offending is driven by or closely associated with drug or alcohol abuse for example stealing to feed a habit, or committing acts of disorder or violence whilst drunk a commitment to address the underlying issue may justify a reduction in sentence.
The court will be assisted by a PSR in making this assessment. Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment. Effective from: 01 October Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence The court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate. There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending including the harm done to victims , and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody.
0コメント