Should/can Cps Reconsider Charge??

[1ofmanyvictims]

I'm sorry to post on here again but more advice would be very much appreciated. I was victim of assault and the defendant has been charged with section 20. He pleaded guilty at magistrates and was due in crown 14th march. It's been put off as the judge requested proof that I've lost my sight (in one eye) as this information wasn't included in my medical reports. He now has this information and he's due to appear in court on 21st march. Should or can the cps re-consider the charge as they wouldn't have had the full details of my injuries when deciding on a charge of section 20??

[black_cat51]

my *non-lawyer* opinion is that the full details of the injuries would only make a difference if they were deciding between ABH and GBH. However, i think what you are saying is you think it should have been a section 18, rather than 20? If so, i think the difference is intent, not what injuries were sustained

[dannyk13]

Black cat is correct, the sole difference between Section 18 and Section 20 is the intent of the attacker.

[1ofmanyvictims]

Thanks. Your answer makes sense. I wasn't sure if the level of injury would increase the seriousness and maybe show intent. The ophthalmologist said a huge amount of force is required to to rupture the choroid, proving that I've been punched with a massive amount of force which may indicate intent?? If he didn't intend to cause injury, then why hit so hard??

[black_cat51]

the injuries, i suppose could push the sentence up?

[shoota]

They won't change the charge if he has already pleaded guilty.

[black_cat51]

just thinking things through, i'm not sure if the amount of force can prove intent one way or the other two examples:
I can't punch as hard as my husband can (i guess!) however, just because i have a feeble punch doesn't mean i didn't intend to really injure you
2. That guy who was in the news the other day who punched a bloke for daring to tell his friend not to ride his bike on the pavement hit him so hard he fell over, banged his head and died. He didn't intend to kill him (i guess)

[1ofmanyvictims]

He assaulted me about 20 minutes before too. I defended myself to prevent any injury(all on CCTV) I believe he wasn't satisfied that he didn't cause injury and therefor done it again( indicating pre meditation). It may have only been a single punch but that's because he was immediately pulled back by the police. He ran 20-30 yards to carry out the assault and hit me from the side when I wasn't even looking at him. All because I'm a prison officer!! Maybe I'm being biased but to me, it's worth letting a jury decide if it was intended.

[black_cat51]

but he wasn't charged with section 18, so all the extra info wont be helpful (except for sentencing)

[black_cat51]

also of course, if he went in front of a jury with a s18 and they said not guilty, then that's it

[1ofmanyvictims]

I know he wasn't charged with section 18 which is why I wanted to know if the cps can change the charge if they decided the charge without all the relevant information. Thanks for the information though. I didn't know he would get off with it completely if found not guilty of section 18. I've lost my sight in 1 eye and possibly my career for no reason whatsoever so I'm finding it difficult to accept that no injury was intended. What else could his intention have possibly been?

[black_cat51]

the section 20 offence does NOT mean there was no intent to hurt/injure you, but the 18 requires further specific intent (the intent to cause GBH) i believe

[1ofmanyvictims]

I don't believe he intended for me to lose my sight but, I do believe if you run 20-30 yards and punch some one when they're not expecting it, then surely he intended to cause at least 1 of the fractures. Like you said, he hasn't been charged for section 18 and if it can't be changed, then all I can hope for is a maximum sentence for section 20.

[New Judge]

From the CPS charging guidelines:

“The distinction between charges under section 18 and section 20 is one of intent. The gravity of the injury resulting is not the determining factor, although it may provide some evidence of intent.”

However, this is all academic. A guilty plea has been accepted to S20 and the CPS will not reconsider the charge.

You wish for a maximum sentence (which is five years) for the S20 offence. Page 8 of this document gives the details.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

Accepting that this offence falls into “Category 1” (Greater harm and higher culpability) you will see that the suggested range is two and a half to four years. Assuming something approaching four years is deemed appropriate (this is by no means certain) you should remember that the offender MUST be given the maximum of one third discount for his guilty plea (which he entered at the earliest opportunity at the Magistrates’ Court). So you are probably looking at a little over two and a half years at most. Also (sorry to continually bear bad news) that the offender will serve only half of this time in custody with the rest being spent out on licence. Also (!) bear in mind that he will almost certainly qualify for early release under the Home Detention Curfew arrangement. This will be a further 90 days off. All in all he is unlikely to spend much more than a year inside and it may be less than that if the original sentence is less than four years.

[EDDIE51]

NJ has summed it up perfectly, I wish it could be a longer sentence but that is all it can be a wish.
You say you are / were a prison officer, the offender will not be popular in jail if the officers find out what he did , they may make things difficult for him if they knew .
Now what if someone was to start a ' whisper on the grapevine' about what he did to a prison officer ? You must still have mates who are still serving officers ;-)

[1ofmanyvictims]

Thank you new judge. I am aware that 3 years is unlikely as he immediately pleaded guilty(foolish not to as it's on CCTV and was witnessed by 5 police officers), has no previous and is appearing remorseful. There are aggravating factors though,main one being that he only assaulted me because he knew I was a prison officer. He also done it in front of my partner who has suffered severe pts from witnessing the incident. I'm not so sure he'll qualify for HDC though. He lives very close to me and this is usually taken into account when deciding to grant it. Depends if he can find other suitable accommodation. I think he also lives with his brother who spent a few years in the prison I work for a section 18 and drug related offences. May not go in his favour!

[Peter Pedant]

O God dammit - it sounds as tho' what you feared would happen ( inefficiency and incompetence ) has led to a lesser charge.

I am terribly sorry.

I think the person who filed the report without the eye eight loss,
you could encourage by reporting to his regulator - GMC
It will certainly make him do a proper report next time
It is a bit of a well-you-know big mistake

sorry one-of-many - sorry to hear this

[EDDIE51]

PP as NJ has explained it is NOT the extent of injuries that determine if a charge is S20 or S18. It is only the ' with or without intent' part of the injury.

[1ofmanyvictims]

Thanks Eddie. I'm still off work at the moment. I'm waiting for occupational health reports and for them to make a decision if I'm to return to operational duties due to the loss of sight in my right eye. I don't think he'll have the easiest time inside with his current opinions of "dirty f ing screws". If he's to get over 2years then he'd usually come to the prison I work at. Fortunately for him. I doubt very much he will be accepted.

[EDDIE51]

So has this person already 'done time' then I thought the original question said he had no 'previous'. Or are his views on prison officers due to his brothers expirience?

[Peter Pedant]

Eddie - I understand that - however as the excerpt points out,
the severity of injuries could imply intent

and here the injury is blindness secondary to orbital blow-out
which basically no-one of us have seen before....

implying more than one blow....
or stamping on the face...