Charged with GBH with intent section 18 - need urgent advice

[alisha_b]

Hi there, i hope you all can help...my friend has been charged with the above and has been found guilty by the Jury and also pleaded guilty.

this all happened whilst she was at home with her 2 little boys, suddenly she had an unexpected person knocking on her. This man asked for yellow pages and she refused to give it to him and she thought it was odd for him to knock on her door at a late time. He then raised his voice she got really scared and try to shut the door but he forced himself through. He went stright through the lounge and grabbed one of her boy, she screamed at him to let go, but he then asked for money. My friend grabbed her purse and with that there was a cricket bat she somehow hit him with that and he fell on the floor. She hit him few times and he had fractured skull. This guy was taken into hosiptal and was in a coma for few weeks. the doctor said he may not survive as he had severe injuries.

My friend was charged for GBH and on bail. She will be sentenced soon. She has no previous conviction, has a good character reference. She works in a school as a teacher, she helps with charities and is a good person. Given all that does she have a change of non-custodial sentence? Her barrister said there is a chance of prison sentence that she needs to prepare. My friends family are devastated and it will ruin her life is she goes in. Her 2 boys are still in a shock of they witness and scared to sleep on their own.

I would be grateful if you can let me know what can happen...will she get a suspended sentence? have there been cases where you can get non-custodial sentence? barrister tried to prove this was a self defence but jury seen the injuries but she was scared as he had her boy.

Please advice?

[Sandy-Wroe]

This seems to be a worse miscarriage of justice than that which happened to the Birmingham Six.
You should get in touch with the Daily Mail. They would be very interested in a case where a mother in her own home, defending her children from an intruder, has been charged and convicted of assaulting that intruder.

[alisha_b]

I dont have the full info on this but i was told briefly so i am not sure when she pleaded guilty but this is what she told me. she is not lying to me as we have been friends for number of years. She does not want to say too much to anyone but i can understand why. Its very stressful for her as she is a single parent and she is preparing for the worse. But hey thanks guys for your advice

[sara3]

there are strict sentencing guidelines, and her barrister will know exactly what the sentencing range is.

if what you're saying is factual, this should really be in the papers by now. I say contact Max Clifford, it's an outrage!

[dh001]

dothawkes31: what do you mean by 'oh and who charged her with GBH??? how does that offence come into it when it was self defence' ???

[dh001]

alisha_b: In summary, the starting point for Sec 18 assault with intent is a custodial sentence, however, there are many factors to consider.

If the defendant was acting in self-defence originally but then went on to use an unreasonable degree of force this might mitigate the sentence. However, because of the requirement to prove intention with Sec 18 the offence will still be at the higher end of the seriousness scale. Her Barrister will advise accordingly.

I agree with some comments posted in that there is some thing not right here.

[dothawkes31]

dh001, I wrote the same thing you did, except yours is more understandable lol

[dh001]

spooky dothawkes lol

[alisha_b]

I think the last resort would be to contact daily mail. But she does not want to even discuss things with so i cant tell you in more details, i am going along with what she has said to me. She is distressed with all this and i dont want to probe too many question but as a friend to help her some ways.

Your time and advice is very much appreciated.

[fredpuli47]

It's not clear to me what she pleaded guilty to. What you may have been told is that she offered a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, for example s20, 'inflicting grievous bodily harm', (that is without the intent to cause gbh) but the prosecution wouldn't accept that as sufficient and insisted on her being tried for s18, the more serious offence. She was then tried by the jury and convicted of that. She argued that whatever she did was a reasonable use of force, not so excessive that it was no longer in self -defence and, perhaps,it was not intended to cause really serious bodily injury anyway.The jury rejected that argument. Force which is claimed to be in self-defence has to be reasonable force in the circumstances the defendant finds herself in, if the defence is to succeed.

s18 is a very serious offence (maximum sentence is life) so serious that, had the man died she'd have been charged with murder. (The intent needed to prove murder is that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm)

She must be facing a prison sentence because she was found guilty of such a serious offence. She might not be, had she been convicted of a lesser offence only. The only question is how long that sentence will be. She has some mitigation to plead, that she's of previous good character and is holding a job of responsibility, which may speak to her general character and calmness, and she was provoked by a threat to her child , which is some consolation.

s18 is very serious. Had the man died she'd have been charged with murder

[fredpuli47]

[Bad editing. Last line was inadvertently repeated.It's still true though]

[jake-the-peg]

The reason that this is not self defense is because of the fact that she kept hitting him when he was on the floor.

Knocking someone to the floor is self-defense continuing to beat them when they are unconcious on the floor is not.

The fact that someone has attempted to mug you does not give you the right to kill them in retribution.

However having said this I am rather surprised that given the circumstances she was charged with the "with intent" section. I suspect you aer not getting the full story here - possibly to do with the convenient location of the cricket bat that seems to have "magically appeared in her hands".

Convictions for GBH with intent pretty much *always* attract a custodial sentence - in the few cases where they do not the sentence is routinely appealed and that appeal is pretty much invariably sucessful.

[alisha_b]

Thanks all for your responses its helped in some ways.

jake-the-peg - about the cricket bat, her little boy plays cricket and leaves it in the room, so unfortunate she used what came in front of her.

But do you know any cases that been charged for GBH with intent section 18 and had non-custodial or lesser sentence?

[fredpuli47]

Whether it's surprising to have the charge or not jake, the judge must have left s18 to the jury and the jury found her guilty of s18. No doubt the whole of the evidence proved it. Just the evidence that the woman wielded a bat so hard and/or so often that the victim was in a coma with a fractured skull and near death tends to suggest that she intended, meant, gbh when she hit him (however she came by the bat, she knew what sort of thing it was and how to use it). That evidence alone on the papers ought to justify the charge of s18. Of course, to take an extreme example, if someone just punches a man once and he falls back and breaks his eggshell skull on the kerb that's different, and a s20 ! If it were one blow with the bat which,very unluckily, broke his skull she might have a run on self-defence ( seems reasonable in the agony of the moment, therefore is taken to be reasonable), but anyway should really only go down on as s20, because it would be very difficult to prove intent. Prosecutors might then, perhaps, only charge the s20, given that and would certainly seriously consider an offered plea of guilty to that, as adequate if they had charged s18.

[fredpuli47]

alisha-b, jake may know of a case where s18, rather than s20, resulted in a non-custodial, but I can't think of one .It would be a pretty rare case (and one where the prosecution would be likely to try to have the sentence made jail on appeal, with success) The problem is that, for s18, the defendant must have intended really serious harm, gbh, when they did what they did.It's not as though they hit the other person without intending gbh but the person happened to suffer that (s20). It's the intent that means prison..

[Panic Button]

I'm with Boo on this one - a big steaming pile of it.

[jake-the-peg]

This is kind of what I meant FredPauli. The described scenario seems rather "Heat of the moment" where intent might be questionable.

I'm sure her claim that the childrens cricket kit was lying about was her defense. However if we contest that a bit and suggest that perhaps she deliberately kept a bat by the door to deal with intruders the intent grows stronger.

Any way it's a bit pointless to debate the whys and wherefores on third hand information.

Alisha - I looked up some stats on this a year or so back in response to a similar question and any case I found where a non-custodial sentence was given out there was a sucessful appeal by the prosecution.

I think the starting point is 4 years but there would be a reduction for a guilty plea and mitigating circumstances and she's not likely to be seen as a danger to the public. However use of a weapon counts as an aggravating factor as does the seriousness of the injury - this sounds serious.

The Average sentence on a section 18 a few years back was about 50 months and the average over all GBH offences was 27 months.

Occationally there are some oddities I found a couple of attempted murder cases with non-custodial - However the sentence may have been appealed against.

I think the odds of your friend avoiding any custodial sentence are very slim.

[Bjohn]

Legal jargon, intent, guilty plea, etc aside - what is one supposed to do when an intruder has unlawfully entered your premises and used you're child as a hostage. Offer him/her a cup of tea, your purse, and the keys to the Golf out front. Come on!!!!! I smell a rat hear too.

[jake-the-peg]

So Bjohn

Someone does this and you knock them senseless to the ground

Self defense nobodies arguing.

You're suggesting that they then should be allowed to beat their unconcious head to a small pulp

That isn't self defence that's an execution!

Perhaps they should be allowed to drag the body to a car inspection pit, heave it over pour petrol on it and light a match

I seem to recall one case where that happened

Is that self defense in your book?

Like so many in this argument you are deliberatly mis-understanding the situation.

[Bjohn]

Jake - do you actually know the details, have you ever had your child used as a bargaining tool, has your child ever been physically held by a stranger, have you ever confronted an intruder in your own home??? Was the intruder hauled into a pit and set on fire??? Did I miss a post???

[alisha_b]

Not sure how its like being a mum but i know from my friends with kids will go at any extent to protect their children and in this case it was protecting her baby!

Just hope and pray she gets a non-custodial sentence.

Just one more quesiton if there Jury has given their verdict of guilty can judge decide on sentence based on mitigation factors? ie single parent looking after her children / employed / good character references and no previous convictions?