 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
anyone know if you can be charged with wounding if the person charged only used their hands to inflict injury.
Depends if the person assaulted was wounded or not...
Yes is the short answer
can't you phone a call centre solicitor to answer this type of question ?
Police been back round to see you 😆
a friend thumped his ex wifes new fella, knocking out 2 front teeth.
he has been charged with wounding...
i thought this would have been assault??
IIRC If visible blood is drawn as a result of the attack it's usually wounding.
A cut inside the mouth counts as visible, internal bleeding or bruising doesn't so would fall under assault
Assault is merely touching without consent. ( one definition)
If he damaged him its far more than assault. Malicious wounding? GBH? Thats permanent lifelong damage. He will be in big trouble.
a friend thumped his ex wifes new fella
Why ....... isn't anyone allowed to go out with his ex-wife ?
Your mate sounds like a right ****. Let him sort out the problems he has with the old bill himself.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm ]Wouldn't usually refer to Wikipedia but the first few sections of this do explain it fairly well.[/url]
Furthermore the charge would have been decided by a CPS lawyer, so should be that which most accurately reflects the evidence.
[url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/index.html#Unlawful_wounding ]Linky[/url]
ernie, you nobber 😆
wonder if he had a reason?
A bruise or internal rupturing of blood vessels is not a wound,[3] and neither is a broken bone.[4]
not wounding then.
wonder if he had a reason?
Well you didn't say that your mate decked some geezer cause he spilt his pint. The important point appears to be that he's going out with his ex-missus.
I don't like him already. And I can see that his ex-wife is well shot of the loser. I hope she makes something of it with her new toothless lover.
Read househusbands link - bleeding cut is only one definition
Grievous bodily harm means serious bodily harm (............... However, examples of what would usually amount to serious harm include:
* injury resulting in [b]permanent disability[/b] or permanent loss of sensory function;
* injury which results in [b]more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement[/b]; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
* compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
* injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
* [b]injuries resulting in lengthy treatment[/b] or incapacity;
Two teeth knocked out meets all the criteria in bold IMO
Clear GBH
Edit - the cpos decides what the charge will be and they only go for charges they think they can get a conviction on. Knocking out two teetth is clear GBH ( and is the behaviour of an utter shite to do)
he will be lucky to avoid doing time and will gt a big fine and will be paying for the medical treatment the chap needs - many thousands and many thousands of compensation.
An utter thug who deserves to go down. IMO of course and yes I don't know all the details
I wonder if there's a CPS lawyer on a forum somewhere right now, asking the exact same question.
I hope he's had as much luck as ton with the answers.
I don't like him already. And I can see that his ex-wife is well shot of the loser
Well I bet there's some sleep being lost over that
Assault can be verbal as well. The charge will more than likely be 'Assault & Battery'.
This is often applied to determine the difference between GBH & ABH.IIRC If visible blood is drawn as a result of the attack it's usually wounding
In your mates case (depending on the evidence), if they cannot go with GBH they will probably pursue a charge of wounding with intent to cause GBH.
They can charge him but the evidence will go before the CPS who will decide (applying their own tests) if there is a prosecutable case to answer.
I'd advise he keeps schtum until he has a solicitor, who can then advise based upon the facts of the case.
teej, answer me this.
when we all evolve into soft non violance types will our balls shrivel and drop off...... 😉
Well I bet there's some sleep being lost over that
Well not unless ton tells him.
ton ..... tell him there's a geezer on the internet who reckons he's a ****
Well you didn't say that your mate decked some geezer cause he spilt his pint. The important point appears to be that he's going out with his ex-missus.I don't like him already. And I can see that his ex-wife is well shot of the loser. I hope she makes something of it with her new toothless lover.
Errmmmm...... what if for instance his ex-wife has a new fella that beat up on his & ex-wifes kid? That happaned to a friend of mine and he half killed the guy when he found out, I certainly didn't think he was acting like a cock in doing so.
Just saying - you don't know the facts do you.
ernie, dont think he would mind, i call him that everytime i see him.
also dont think he would be bothered if it was gbh, wounding or assault.
i was just curious. i thought wounding involved a weapon, like a knife, glass, bottle whatever...
what if for instance his ex-wife has a new fella that beat up on his & ex-wifes kid?
ton referred to the ex-wife's "new fella". Obviously the fact that he's the "new fella" is the important fact ......otherwise he would of talked about some bloke who beat up his kids.
That's enough evidence for me ........... I hope he goes down for it.
btw GBH is an indictable only offense, meaning if he is to be prosecuted on a charge of GBH he will be put before a judge and jury (crown court)...
More of a chance of being acquitted than in the Magistrates, however if found guilty the punishments are more severe.
"The charge will more than likely be 'Assault & Battery'"
That's strange, because although I don't look into every prisoner's offence, I've never actually seen/noticed anyone in prison for 'assault & battery' but I've seen 'assault' or 'battery'. Usually though it's GBH or ABH. Very few for 'battery' alone. Depends on the magistrate/court/judge i suppose.
Oh, & I forgot, there's quite a few 'Wounding With Intent' in as well
ton referred to the ex-wife's "new fella". Obviously the fact that he's the "new fella" is the important fact
Ok, so what if her new fella beat up on her? Just saying that there is some facts missing here, and a reason for him acting this way. I'm with you 100% that violence is pretty much inexcusable, but sometimes there is a reason that people act in this way. If it's just sour grapes or jeliousy then i hope he gets what coming to him too - don't get me wrong.
Just get Steven Gerrards Lawyer on the case, he can get a guy off punching someone, being physically restrained from doing it again and being caught on CCTV in a busy bar woth loads of witnesses. (probably)
That's strange, because although I don't look into every prisoner's offence, I've never actually seen/noticed anyone in prison for 'assault & battery' but I've seen 'assault' or 'battery'.
Yeah its a strange one, but as assault can also be verbal, it is very difficult to prove without the battery element.
ernie does not need facts to provoke a reaction , well done all for failing to bite again 🙄
think i was something to do with the kids.
says he is gonna deck the bloke everytime he sees him..
proper head the ball behaviour that i think...
Ok, so what if her new fella beat up on her?
Look, the bloke hit another geezer, he knocked two of his front out, he's been charged with wounding, [i]plus[/i], as he's one of ton's mates, he probably a pikey.
What more proof do you want ffs ?
i was just curious. i thought wounding involved a weapon, like a knife, glass, bottle whatever...
the use of a 'weapon' would be an aggrvating factor and would be taken into when sentencing if/when found guilty
btw GBH is an indictable only offense
I thought it was an 'either way' offence (s.20 OAPA), however it is some time since I have looked into such matters and I'm a wrong a lot of the time.
Edit - the cpos decides what the charge will be and they only go for charges they think they can get a conviction on
Not in England TJ which, if the charge is wounding (ie. S18 or S20 OAPA), is where ton's mate is. CPS decide the charges in England.
In Scotland, where I think you are, the police charge with what they think is appropriate, usually the highest the evidence justifies, then the PF reviews the evidence and amends the charges as necessary if the police were off target.
esselgruntfuttock is correct about assault and battery being different things. Battery consists merely in unlawfully touching another (thus no particular injury is necessary), and is distinguished from assault, where the victim is caused to apprehend the immediate commission of a battery. You then step up to ABH, onto GBH, GBH with intent and so on.
ernie, no need for the pikey bit..
Battery consists merely in unlawfully touching another (thus no particular injury is necessary)
So have you ever charged for assault or battery separately (and gained a conviction)?
Never charged anyone with assault just for scaring someone, you'd go with a public order offence for that.
For assaults resulting in minor injury, used to charge with Section 39. Just to confuse things, the wording of that charge ended '...and did [i]beat[/i] him/her' rather than the word 'batter'.
Been in Scotland a while now which is different laws altogether.
think i was something to do with the kids.
says he is gonna deck the bloke everytime he sees him..
ton - you only "think" it has something to do with the kids ?
Tell you what, why don't you next time he says that he's going deck the bloke every time he sees him, ask him ? Just say, "what exactly did this geezer do to upset you so much mate?" Or do your mates say that sort of stuff so often that you don't think of asking them ?
ernie, what are you implying
I'm implying that you're trolling mate. I'm sure you've got a mate who's been charged with wounding, but you know as well as I do, that the person who decided the charge knew what they were doing - there's no need ask : [i]"anyone know if you can be charged with wounding if the person charged only used their hands to inflict injury."[/i] on a cycling forum, you know that the answer is yes ..... because your mate's been charged under those circumstances.
The thread was for reaction imo, but unlike tails, I love your trolling. As I've said before mate, you're the most lovable troll on here 😉
chat forum...
Wounding involves using a weapon. If the weapon is used with pre meditated thought, ie picking up a glass and walking over to someone and using it to inflict injury (consistent with at least a ABH, that being breaking the skin) that is wounding with intent, section 18 of the OAP act 1861 reflects. Punching someone and knocking their teeth out is GBH. If he is saying that is what he has been charged with and he used no weapon at all, he shouldn't be charged with a wounding.
Although I'm guessing someone who did that is probably not overly proud of telling others and we humans are very good at feeding others the information that we know will get the answer we want. What I mean by that is that he probably had a hulking great ring on or something he KNEW (pre meditated) or ought to have known would inflict injury, but has rather conviniently omited that little snippet of information from the story!!
Had a nice chap crush a beer glass into my cheek 10 mins into the new millennium. He was charged with wounding & got 4 years, its a pretty serious charge by all accounts.
chat forum...
Indeed it is ton. And I wasn't criticising - far from it. I like your threads 8) But you knew the answer didn't you ? Still, if the CPS lawyer screwed up so badly, and he/she knows even less than punters on a mtb forum, then it will get thrown out of court. Unless of course the magistrate/judge is clueless too 😉
i think Englishmastiff has the best answer so far..........off to bed now.
night.. 8)
**** off ernie, you're taking this nowhere near serious enough. ton's worried for his mate's welfare, and you just accuse him of trolling. Is this a follow on fromthe swinging thread? Have marriages been broken up already? As if...
ton - Memberteej, answer me this.
when we all evolve into soft non violance types will our balls shrivel and drop off....
all of us? No violence any more. Nice that would be. a man walks away - a scared child hits out
thegreatape - MemberEdit - the cpos decides what the charge will be and they only go for charges they think they can get a conviction on
Not in England TJ which, if the charge is wounding (ie. S18 or S20 OAPA), is where ton's mate is. CPS decide the charges in England.
There was a fat finger typo in my post - It was meant to say CPS However you obviously know more than I
Dont really matter -tons "mate" is a thug who deserves to go down and I hope he does
Nothing ever excuses violence except to prevent greater violence at that moment.
I thought it was an 'either way' offence (s.20 OAPA), however it is some time since I have looked into such matters and I'm a wrong a lot of the time.
GBH, s.18 and s.20, are both indictable only offences.
Ernie, thats not the worst of it. His mate voted Tory at the last election! Up for sending him to the Gulag are we?
Sorry I appear to have been drawn into a trolling thread!
No more considered answers....
He is a vicious thug, a monster no less...
he deserves everything that is coming to him...
they should throw the book at him...
he should be locked up indefinitely...
he is a danger to society and ex-wifes new boyfriends everywhere.
(froth, froth, bile, bile, Daily Mail repeat ad nauseum)!
There that is more consistent with the standard STW mentality. 😉
I think this covers all the points discussed here
the answer to the question is yes. however most woundings involve a cut/s caused by glass or a knife.
a couple of teeth knocked out is a safe bet for a charge of abh (s.47), based on cps charging standards (approx. 10 years ago, may have changed) a charge of s.20 or s.18 may well be bargained down to s.47 at some point, in return for a guilty plea.
in england police decide the charge, based on whether there is enough evidence to secure a conviction. they will ask for cps advice if they are unsure, but cps charging standards in relation to assaults are/were clear (again 10 years ago)
Actually weeping with laughter at Pook's link. 😆
It's changed since then keavo. About 5 yrs ago the system changed, and now everything but a handful of the most basic offences have to go to CPS for a decision. Less detections for the police, greater conviction rate for the CPS.
when we all evolve into soft non violance types will our balls shrivel and drop off..
I assume you mean when we grow up? Then the answer's no, as you can still be an adult and have balls 🙂
thanks for info.....sounds ace 😉
Section 20 is triable EITHER WAY only section 18 OAPA is triable on indictment only.