Crosswords0 min ago
Proving Common Assault On A Minor.
8 Answers
Good afternoon.
I've been summoned to appear in the Magistrates' court for common assault on a boy of about 16.
The boys were playing a bizarre and dangerous game of standing by the side of the road and running across the road just as a car was coming. I drove past once and slammed on. They ran away. They did it again on my way back 10 minutes later. I slammed on again but this time I got out and angrily, but not aggressively told them that they're being daft. One particular boy was being mouthy back and his friends were laughing. I got back in and drove off.
This was months ago, but the police came to my door a month or two after to arrange a voluntary interview. I stupidly went unrepresented. The police officer said that I had grabbed one of the boys arm tight and left a mark. The witness statements back this up and apparently there are photographs of marks on his arm. I did not go near enough to touch him.
I have been charged with a Section 39 Beating.
I have since been down to the mag court for the first hearing where I met my solicitor. She read the prosecution papers and said that 2 of the 5 witnesses do not wish to appear in court.
Just a few days before having to go down the first hearing, I drove past two of the boys that were there with my window down. One shouted "PAEDO!" at me. That was hurtful as not only was it not warranted, I have never ever been suspected of that.
I'm really up against it because I did not touch this boy, but his mates all say that I did, and there are photographs of the marks.
What is likely to happen?
Thanks for all taking the time to read and answer!
I've been summoned to appear in the Magistrates' court for common assault on a boy of about 16.
The boys were playing a bizarre and dangerous game of standing by the side of the road and running across the road just as a car was coming. I drove past once and slammed on. They ran away. They did it again on my way back 10 minutes later. I slammed on again but this time I got out and angrily, but not aggressively told them that they're being daft. One particular boy was being mouthy back and his friends were laughing. I got back in and drove off.
This was months ago, but the police came to my door a month or two after to arrange a voluntary interview. I stupidly went unrepresented. The police officer said that I had grabbed one of the boys arm tight and left a mark. The witness statements back this up and apparently there are photographs of marks on his arm. I did not go near enough to touch him.
I have been charged with a Section 39 Beating.
I have since been down to the mag court for the first hearing where I met my solicitor. She read the prosecution papers and said that 2 of the 5 witnesses do not wish to appear in court.
Just a few days before having to go down the first hearing, I drove past two of the boys that were there with my window down. One shouted "PAEDO!" at me. That was hurtful as not only was it not warranted, I have never ever been suspected of that.
I'm really up against it because I did not touch this boy, but his mates all say that I did, and there are photographs of the marks.
What is likely to happen?
Thanks for all taking the time to read and answer!
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by no_way_jose. 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.
You should obviously plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof. The witnesses will have to attend court and give their evidence in person verbally. They will be liable to cross-examination when their evidence can be tested. The evidence of witnesses not attending cannot be presented to the court unless you agree. The photographs may prove the boy was grabbed but they do not, of course, prove who inflicted them. Follow your solicitor’s advice carefully but you may find that the witnesses to this alleged assault may be somewhat reticent to come to court to give their evidence come the day. From what you say, even if they do appear, their evidence may be dismantled under cross-examination.
You should also keep your solictor informed of any intimidation you suffer in the meantime.
You should also keep your solictor informed of any intimidation you suffer in the meantime.
.
They were playing a game called chicken.
I was involved in the death of a child in 1988 who was knocked down by the car in front of me - at 70 mph. M602 -and flattened.
Half way thro this horrific episode - as a first aider, I did CPR and mouth to mouth on the [dead ] child - the police asked me: have you been drinking ?
er so what ?
All the kiddie-witnesses lied at the inquest.
It was easy for everyone to tell...
do as New Judge says.....
They were playing a game called chicken.
I was involved in the death of a child in 1988 who was knocked down by the car in front of me - at 70 mph. M602 -and flattened.
Half way thro this horrific episode - as a first aider, I did CPR and mouth to mouth on the [dead ] child - the police asked me: have you been drinking ?
er so what ?
All the kiddie-witnesses lied at the inquest.
It was easy for everyone to tell...
do as New Judge says.....
Good advice from NJ & PP.
If you were not guilty you must plead not guilty, some people plead guilty to get it all over with, which is a mistake. It is for the prosecution to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which should be not possible if you got out of your vehicle solely to explain the foolishness of the boys behaviour and did not have a guilty mind. This would have been commenced by the police and then taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service s39 of the Criminal Justice act 1988 is a summary offence and is the lowest charge for assault possible.
If you were not guilty you must plead not guilty, some people plead guilty to get it all over with, which is a mistake. It is for the prosecution to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which should be not possible if you got out of your vehicle solely to explain the foolishness of the boys behaviour and did not have a guilty mind. This would have been commenced by the police and then taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service s39 of the Criminal Justice act 1988 is a summary offence and is the lowest charge for assault possible.
You will probably come before a bench of 3 lay Magistrates with a qualified clerk, if this will be your first appearance it is very unlikely it will be stopped, if you plead not guilty there is the possibility it will be stopped before your next appearance but do not count on this. If you are not guilty plead not guilty, it may take some time but it will be worthwhile.
Well, my trial is tomorrow and I can't believe its come to this!
However, when I met with my solicitor at the plea hearing, the prosecution called my solicitor out of the room to ask if I would accept a caution. Does that give me an indication of the strength of the case perhaps?
I declined because I haven't done anything wrong.
Thanks!
However, when I met with my solicitor at the plea hearing, the prosecution called my solicitor out of the room to ask if I would accept a caution. Does that give me an indication of the strength of the case perhaps?
I declined because I haven't done anything wrong.
Thanks!
1 to 8 of 8
