Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sending an offender down under? Ashes 2017-18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    All the right words, but not neccesarily in the right order.
    Last edited by Janik; 14-08-2018, 21:48.

    Comment


      Would it have been easier to make a GBH or ABH charge stick - on all the defendants – than affray, which judging by how it all panned out, seemed less decisively provable?

      Comment


        The difficulty with an ABH (I don't think anyone sustained an injury that constitutes grievous) in a mass brawl is that it's often near impossible to ascertain who caused a particular injury. For instance in this trial the defence suggested it could have been Hales who caused some of the injuries.

        Comment


          The CPS did try to append a charge of ABH at the very last minute on the first day of the trial but the judge ruled it out as Stokes’ defence could not have prepared for it.
          Last edited by Ray de Galles; 15-08-2018, 07:30.

          Comment


            What's the difference between actual and grievous bodily harm?

            Comment


              Actual = e.g. Bruising, cuts
              Grievous =e.g. Broken bones

              Comment


                Are you sure of that, ad hoc? One of the guys Stokes and Hales hit was left with a fractured eye socket. Isn't grevious more like permanent injuries?

                Comment


                  It's borderline - I'm quoting from a solicitors website as it specifically mentions a fractured eye socket.

                  What is Grievous Bodily Harm? (GBH)
                  Inflicting grievous bodily harm to another person is the most serious form of assault. The offence of GBH can be committed in two ways:

                  It can be intentionally inflicted, which is typically where the accused person is alleged to have intended to cause grievous levels of injury. This type of intentional wounding is contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Individuals convicted of a Section 18 offence of wounding with intent will often receive lengthy prison sentences, often with significant restrictions on their freedom when they are released
                  It is also possible to commit GBH recklessly. In this instance, while still serious, the case is treated differently. GBH committed recklessly is contrary to Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). A person convicted of this type of assault would be someone that didn’t intend to inflict a serious injury but did so nonetheless.
                  GBH, whether contrary to s.18 or s.20 OAPA, is the most serious because, in most cases, a victim of GBH is left with serious injuries, which can sometimes be life changing. They could also be left with long term injuries or scarring.

                  Severe injuries are deemed to cause serious detriment to a victim’s health, whether:

                  What acts and injuries constitute GBH?

                  Physically through wounding
                  Biologically through the transmission of disease
                  Psychologically if fear or paranoia are caused by the incident

                  If violence is inflicted with a weapon or the equivalent of a weapon, then the act is likely to be classified as inflicting grievous bodily harm intentionally (section 18).

                  Weapon equivalents are objects, items or parts of the body that are not themselves weapons but can be a weapon when used intentionally, such as:

                  The use of shod feet (kicking or stomping whilst wearing shoes)
                  Headbutting
                  The use of acid as a weapon
                  The use of an animal as a weapon
                  It is possible to inflict GBH with one strike or punch, however the more sustained, ferocious or prolonged the incident, the more likely it is to be viewed that the consequences were intended.

                  Weapon usage can also change the dynamics of a case. For example, if an accused person were to strike a victim to the face once with a punch which resulted in a fractured eye socket, it could be viewed that the serious injury was not intended. On the other hand, if a knuckle duster was used, the fracturing of the eye socket would be more likely to be considered intentional.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Janik View Post
                    Are you sure of that, ad hoc? One of the guys Stokes and Hales hit was left with a fractured eye socket. Isn't grevious more like permanent injuries?
                    Am I sure of it? No it seems like a grey area to me. Those are examples that I have read. I assume that in practice the prosecution makes the decision over what to charge someone with based on how likely they are to get a conviction (ie if they feel it's a clear cut case that the defendant inflicted the injuries but it's more doubtful that the injuries constitute GBH then they'll go for ABH)

                    Though my assumptions about how the legal system works should be taken with barrowloads of salt

                    Comment


                      The CPS seem to be clueless if they didn't realize until too late that they'd fucked up the charges.

                      Comment


                        Well, as I say, affray would be the normal charge for this sort of offence. The attempt to add on the assault charge was probably a bit belt and braces. Obviously they cocked up by not introducing it earlier.

                        Comment


                          Just to clarify Etienne, by 'this sort of offence' you mean 'this sort of incident'...?

                          Comment


                            Yes, thanks.

                            Comment


                              We need a Danny Cipriani thread.

                              Comment


                                He's on way his way to ending up about six feet under . . .

                                Comment


                                  I'm sure it will emerge that Cipriani was protecting two gay guys from homophobic abuse by the plod.

                                  Comment


                                    I found this post from the Secret Barrister to be quite helpful.

                                    Comment


                                      Yeah. If you think the jury found him not guilty on reason 2b then the charging would have made no difference. If you think that they found him not guilty on reason 3 then an assault charge may have stuck.

                                      Comment


                                        Back in the England team now, which doesn't sit too easily for lots of reasons.

                                        To take the cricketing one, Sam Curran is desperately unlucky. Without his 60-odd at Edgbaston, Stokes would almost certainly not have been in the position to 'win the match for England' on that fourth morning. I'd rather have Curran's bowling than Stokes's at the moment, and his left-arm bowling gives an interesting variation.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X