Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello what exactly drove you to punch this person?
will he give evidence against you?
I would have expected them to add a S20 as an alternative. S18 is a harder offence to prove and it isn’t really made out here.
The circumstances would be taken into account but it doesn’t change the fact that he did suffer a serious head injury.
As far as a S18 goes this really straddles between category two and category three. The starting point then would be either 4-6 years.
It seems to fit S20 better where it is really a category two offence and the starting point would be 18 months and the range 1 - 3 years.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Not for a S18.
It is possible for a S20.
Not sure what you mean by notice to suspect.
If you are charged then it should be either a charge sheet or an indictment.
Usually they would allege either a S18 or a S20 in the alternative. If I were prosecuting this I would add a S20 just for safety. S18 is too high.
That is just a bail notice.
That means nothing at all.
Police officers will always arrest for the most serious offence because it gives them greater powers.
Pleading guilty is always helpful.
There are counsel who disagree with me but I would rarely mitigate on the basis of stresses. I think Judges just interpret it as whinging and trying to make excuses. The way to raise domestic responsibilities is to make the point that other people depend upon you for some reason or another.
Your best point here though is that there was a degree of provocation.
If it is an 18 then it can only be tried in the crown court. A s20 could stay down but it won't. You are much better off in the crown court though anyway.
If it is a broken jaw then it is probably a s20 and it probably falls in category two or three so around 18 months. If I were having to guess without papers.
I don't do employment work. People are sentenced all the time and don't lose their job. Unless you are a well known person I would be surprised if the press are interested.
It depends what else is in that week. If it is a slow news day then maybe. It is not an obvious target though. Not many people read the local press anyway. Quite a lot of people don't read at all
You did have a solicitor in police interview I presume ?
I am happy to continue with this but please rate my answer.
Im not sure how you do that but I'm sure customer services will help. You can contact them on***@******.***
Can I help further?
No, compensation isn't affected.
I suppose that a compensation award wouldn't be made by the criminal courts if a person were in custody but their eyes will be on the civil courts.
They won't get much for this and they will have to pay to sue.
If compensation is their goal then what they have to do is say that somebody they don't remember touched them at a place they don't remember 100 years ago.
Or they could always work and earn money ethically.
In my experience, compensation hunters tend to be women more than men.
Character references are always good.
Not really. They are probably just busy or need to do some other investigative work. There is nothing in delay per se.
Oh yes, fairly. There are never enough officers to do anything at the moment. Although it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't spend all their energy investigating false allegations of sexual abuse one hundred years ago.
Half the time against dead people. Or mediating domestic squabbles which we euphemistically call 'domestic abuse.'
No, but they can do a covert ID.
Although on the positive side covert IDs are much easier to challenge in court.
No, but they might use a still from you in the custody suite a police station to show to the witness.
That is a very unfair ID but if a person refuses all the fairer offers then it is open to them.
Not if your solicitor advised you not to.
I imagine the risk is that you will be identified. You will on a covert ID too but at least it is easier to argue that is not reliable at court.
1 An identification by some other means - probably using a still of you in the custody suite
2 Yes, probably.
3 Not really. At least, it is potentially mitigation but it isn't necessarily a defence.
All the best.
I can't really say why you would be interviewed again.
Usually it is to put fresh evidence but I wouldn't know what it is obviously.