'Boil Water' Warning After Confirmed...
News2 mins ago
GBH Section 18 vs GBH Section 20................
Can somebody please tell me what would happen in this scenario please?
Out of 10 jurors, 7 are in favour for a section 18 charge, 3 are in favour for the lesser charge of section 20, the judge has stated that a 9:1 majority would be enough
The 3 jurors opting for the lesser charge were not willing to budge.
What would happen if the 7 opting for the section 18 charge were not willing to change to the lesser charge?
Out of 10 jurors, 7 are in favour for a section 18 charge, 3 are in favour for the lesser charge of section 20, the judge has stated that a 9:1 majority would be enough
The 3 jurors opting for the lesser charge were not willing to budge.
What would happen if the 7 opting for the section 18 charge were not willing to change to the lesser charge?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ELVIS68. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Disclaimer: The following is solely based upon my understanding of 'how things work', after many years of reading court reports (and having done a bit of court reporting myself). I can't find any 'official' references to back it up:
The judge could simply discharge the jury because they had failed to reach a verdict on the Section 18 charge. That would leave the CPS to decide whether it would be in the public interest to seek a second 'Section 18' trial or simply to go for 'Section 20'.
In practice the judge is more likely to consult with the CPS barrister to see whether the pursuit of a 'Section 18' charge is likely. Given that the jury has already unanimously agreed that the defendant has committed 'Section 20' GBH (and that the judge could hint that he's considering passing a sentence close to that which a 'Section 18' conviction would bring about) the CPS might well decide to ask the court to accept the withdrawal of the Section 18 charge. The judge would then order the jury to acquit on 'Section 18' but to return a verdict on 'Section 20'.
Chris
The judge could simply discharge the jury because they had failed to reach a verdict on the Section 18 charge. That would leave the CPS to decide whether it would be in the public interest to seek a second 'Section 18' trial or simply to go for 'Section 20'.
In practice the judge is more likely to consult with the CPS barrister to see whether the pursuit of a 'Section 18' charge is likely. Given that the jury has already unanimously agreed that the defendant has committed 'Section 20' GBH (and that the judge could hint that he's considering passing a sentence close to that which a 'Section 18' conviction would bring about) the CPS might well decide to ask the court to accept the withdrawal of the Section 18 charge. The judge would then order the jury to acquit on 'Section 18' but to return a verdict on 'Section 20'.
Chris
Thanks Chris, in the end 6 of the 7 went with the section 20 charge.
The reason the 3 wouldn`t budge to the more serious charge was because they reckon there wasn`t enough evidence to suggest that the defendant sticking an 8" carving knife into the victims stomach didn`t "intend" to do him serious harm.
Even though the knife went in 5", through the liver, damaging the gall bladder, duodenum and colon
The reason the 3 wouldn`t budge to the more serious charge was because they reckon there wasn`t enough evidence to suggest that the defendant sticking an 8" carving knife into the victims stomach didn`t "intend" to do him serious harm.
Even though the knife went in 5", through the liver, damaging the gall bladder, duodenum and colon
Thanks for your reply.
In law, the decision about whether 'with intent' is appropriate must always be completely divorced from the consequences of any actions. That means that such factors as making prior threats or deliberately selecting a weapon are more important than the extent of any injuries. (The extent of injuries separates 'common assault' from ABH, and 'ABH' from 'GBH' but it's completely irrelevant in separating 'GBH' from 'GBH with intent').
Here's the relevant piece of advice that the CPS gives to its prosecutors:
http://www.cps.gov.uk...he_person/#P242_19963
They clearly decided that it was worth pursuing a conviction under 'Section 18' but they were ultimately unable to do so. While the jury's decision may seem to be rather perverse, I'm happy to see that at least some jurors are prepared to consider all of the facts. (In my opinion, far too many jurors simply 'go with the flow' and vote the way which will see them get home earliest).
Chris
In law, the decision about whether 'with intent' is appropriate must always be completely divorced from the consequences of any actions. That means that such factors as making prior threats or deliberately selecting a weapon are more important than the extent of any injuries. (The extent of injuries separates 'common assault' from ABH, and 'ABH' from 'GBH' but it's completely irrelevant in separating 'GBH' from 'GBH with intent').
Here's the relevant piece of advice that the CPS gives to its prosecutors:
http://www.cps.gov.uk...he_person/#P242_19963
They clearly decided that it was worth pursuing a conviction under 'Section 18' but they were ultimately unable to do so. While the jury's decision may seem to be rather perverse, I'm happy to see that at least some jurors are prepared to consider all of the facts. (In my opinion, far too many jurors simply 'go with the flow' and vote the way which will see them get home earliest).
Chris
The defendant was at a party with his mate, his mate left after an argument and was followed up the road by a group of partygoers, the defendant heard about this and went to the kitchen and picked up 2 carving knives and followed the group.
What happened next is the 64 million dollar question, but the evidence suggests he handed one of the knives to his mate who stabbed someone and he stabbed someone else, both of them have admitted having the knives but claim the stabbings were accidental!..ie they fell onto the knives
What happened next is the 64 million dollar question, but the evidence suggests he handed one of the knives to his mate who stabbed someone and he stabbed someone else, both of them have admitted having the knives but claim the stabbings were accidental!..ie they fell onto the knives
Well, based upon that I can well see why the CPS opted for a 'Section 18' charge but the case serves to illustrate the problems that courts face when more than one offender is involved and they both state that they only played a minor part in the offence.
I'm still happy to see that jurors are really thinking through all of the legal aspects of a case but, inevitably, that will mean that some offenders 'get off light' (or even completely). Since no system can be perfect the only alternative would be a system which convicted some people for offences which they'd not committed.
Chris
I'm still happy to see that jurors are really thinking through all of the legal aspects of a case but, inevitably, that will mean that some offenders 'get off light' (or even completely). Since no system can be perfect the only alternative would be a system which convicted some people for offences which they'd not committed.
Chris
They are all agreed on the s20 . They can return a verdict of guilty on that. It doesn't matter that three think that there was the intent and seven don't.
The question asked of the foreman is 'Have the jury reached a verdict on any count of the indictment upon which at least nine of you are agreed?' The foreman might, in this case, say 'no' even though all ten of them are agreed that all the elements of the s20 count are established and they ought to return a verdict of guilty on that before retiring to consider whether s18 is proved. The judge should ask them whether there is anything, on the evidence or the law on which they would like further guidance. That should produce an appropriate question indicating what is happening and result in a direction that, if they are agreed on the elements of one count they should return that verdict before considering the other count. The judge would also, at some point, give them the 'give and take direction' ( along the lines of 'whilst you are bound to be faithful to your oath your duty is to consider the opinions of others. It makes for great trouble and expense if jurors are unable to agree' )
This arises quite often in practice. On hearing the verdict of guilty to s20 the judge orders the jury to retire to consider s18. If they are unable to agree on that after due time, and say they can't, the judge will discharge the jury from returning a verdict on that count and ask the prosecution whether they really want a retrial on the one count. They won't .
The question asked of the foreman is 'Have the jury reached a verdict on any count of the indictment upon which at least nine of you are agreed?' The foreman might, in this case, say 'no' even though all ten of them are agreed that all the elements of the s20 count are established and they ought to return a verdict of guilty on that before retiring to consider whether s18 is proved. The judge should ask them whether there is anything, on the evidence or the law on which they would like further guidance. That should produce an appropriate question indicating what is happening and result in a direction that, if they are agreed on the elements of one count they should return that verdict before considering the other count. The judge would also, at some point, give them the 'give and take direction' ( along the lines of 'whilst you are bound to be faithful to your oath your duty is to consider the opinions of others. It makes for great trouble and expense if jurors are unable to agree' )
This arises quite often in practice. On hearing the verdict of guilty to s20 the judge orders the jury to retire to consider s18. If they are unable to agree on that after due time, and say they can't, the judge will discharge the jury from returning a verdict on that count and ask the prosecution whether they really want a retrial on the one count. They won't .
1 to 6 of 6
