Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
GBH Section 20 - Barrister support issues
3 Answers
(Please also see my other questions on GBH which outline the allegation in more detail).
My son has been accused and charged with GBH section 20 and it is basically his word against to other persons (although my wife was also there but here statement has virtually been dismissed because she is not independent). There is much history but the basis of the allegation is that my son punched the other person and this fractured his skull. The surgeon stated that this is unlikely to have been caused by a punch and is more likely to have been caused by an object. Our own doctor performed his own inspection and stated that a knuckle is more than likely to be the cause (and therefore this has made our situation worse).
Our Barrister has advised my son to plead guilty as a 'damage limitation' act. He bases this purely on the fact that he cannot see why the other person would be willing to lie to the Police and then continue to lie in Court and he feels that the Jury will feel the same and find my son guilty. We argued that surely my son was innocent until proven guilty and that it was up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.
The Barristers point of view was that if my son was found guilty after trial by Jury, he would probably receive an 18 month sentence. However he felt that by pleading guilty he would receive 12 months or less and a good chance that it would be suspended. My son has impeccable background and character references.
We had a lengthy discussion during which both sides made their views clear. This resulted in our Barrister recommending that we change Barristers (albeit within the same law firm) and he felt we needed a second opinion.
Is it wise to change Barristers at this point?
Should my son plead guilty to limit the potential damages (and isn't this lying on oath)?
Is our Barrister just looking after his own interests and doesn't want to defend a case he may loose?
My son has been accused and charged with GBH section 20 and it is basically his word against to other persons (although my wife was also there but here statement has virtually been dismissed because she is not independent). There is much history but the basis of the allegation is that my son punched the other person and this fractured his skull. The surgeon stated that this is unlikely to have been caused by a punch and is more likely to have been caused by an object. Our own doctor performed his own inspection and stated that a knuckle is more than likely to be the cause (and therefore this has made our situation worse).
Our Barrister has advised my son to plead guilty as a 'damage limitation' act. He bases this purely on the fact that he cannot see why the other person would be willing to lie to the Police and then continue to lie in Court and he feels that the Jury will feel the same and find my son guilty. We argued that surely my son was innocent until proven guilty and that it was up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.
The Barristers point of view was that if my son was found guilty after trial by Jury, he would probably receive an 18 month sentence. However he felt that by pleading guilty he would receive 12 months or less and a good chance that it would be suspended. My son has impeccable background and character references.
We had a lengthy discussion during which both sides made their views clear. This resulted in our Barrister recommending that we change Barristers (albeit within the same law firm) and he felt we needed a second opinion.
Is it wise to change Barristers at this point?
Should my son plead guilty to limit the potential damages (and isn't this lying on oath)?
Is our Barrister just looking after his own interests and doesn't want to defend a case he may loose?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by worriedfather. 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.
If your son pleads not guilty it seems it is going to depend on how credible the jury find him (& his witnesses) as opposed to how credible they find the accuser (& any witnesses he has). From reading your earlier posts, it occurs to me that the view of the surgeon (i.e. that the blow came from an implement & not a fist) is vitally important & that you need to make sure he can give evidence to this effect.
As regards the barrister, your son appears to have a choice - either stick with the one you have & plead guilty, or change to someone who is willing to defend the case properly.
As regards the barrister, your son appears to have a choice - either stick with the one you have & plead guilty, or change to someone who is willing to defend the case properly.
Thanks for the responce
I have little faith in the British Justice system if it comes down to who can impress the jury and make themselves look more credible.
We have been advised all the way through this process to plead not-guilty and then suddenly we meet our Barrister who takes a totally different view.
We were told from the start that the Prosecution had to prove my son had comitted the offence and we had the benefit of the doubt. Suddenly, the benefit of the doubt and 'innocent until proven guilty' seems to have dissapeared.
Maybe our Barrister has already pre-judged the situation and has found my son guilty.
I have little faith in the British Justice system if it comes down to who can impress the jury and make themselves look more credible.
We have been advised all the way through this process to plead not-guilty and then suddenly we meet our Barrister who takes a totally different view.
We were told from the start that the Prosecution had to prove my son had comitted the offence and we had the benefit of the doubt. Suddenly, the benefit of the doubt and 'innocent until proven guilty' seems to have dissapeared.
Maybe our Barrister has already pre-judged the situation and has found my son guilty.
This saga continues.
My son had no option but to change his plea to guilty. His only challenge to the prosecution that the damage was caused by an object and not a fist seems to have been twisted and the presecution threatened to use this against my son stating that as it was dark, maybe he did use a weapon.
Anyway, he met with Probation Services last week and their report is pushing for a non-custodial sentence.
Just how much weight does this have in court? Will the judge follow the advise of the report?
My son had no option but to change his plea to guilty. His only challenge to the prosecution that the damage was caused by an object and not a fist seems to have been twisted and the presecution threatened to use this against my son stating that as it was dark, maybe he did use a weapon.
Anyway, he met with Probation Services last week and their report is pushing for a non-custodial sentence.
Just how much weight does this have in court? Will the judge follow the advise of the report?
1 to 3 of 3
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.