21 replies to this topic

[Josh'Grizzly'Gregory]

I've just finished a case study scenario for uni and thought I'd see what other people might suggest for an appropriate charge in the given circs. Please note I have already submitted this work with my decided charge for the case and before I give my decision I am intrigued to read what others would consider the following incident to be. In the scenario there is swearing and racial language so I apologise for any offence it may cause, also please note this scenario is entirely fictious.

DAWSON was walking home from the corner shop and saw her neighbour PRICE standing at the front of the pub. As DAWSON walks towards PRICE, DAWSON shouts "THERE GOES THAT BLACK MANS WHORE." Being very offended by this remark PRICE comments back, "ATLEAST I'M ONLY SLEEPING WITH ONE MAN AND NOT HALF THE TOWN YOU TART." PRICE then picks up an ashtray and throws it at DAWSON hitting her in the right shoulder and putting her off balance, as DAWSON regains her balance PRICE runs at DAWSON, grabs her by the hair and pulls her head down and proceeds to knee her in the face resulting in a broken nose, black eyes and a 7cm cut to her left eye.


So what is everyone's thoughts for the offence?

[hathaway]

Dawson:

• s.5 Public order for the swearing

Price:

• Her words aren't really worth a s.5
• Assault, aggravated by use of a weapon (the ash tray) and possibly because of pre-meditation, depending on how far she had to go to pick up the ash tray - within reach, no. A few steps or more, yes.
• Black eyes and broken nose would be ABH (no wound), but the 7cm cut would be GBH

Price likely be charged with assault occasioning GBH

[Josh'Grizzly'Gregory]

Dawson:

• s.5 Public order for the swearing

Price:

• Her words aren't really worth a s.5
• Assault, aggravated by use of a weapon (the ash tray) and possibly because of pre-meditation, depending on how far she had to go to pick up the ash tray - within reach, no. A few steps or more, yes.
• Black eyes and broken nose would be ABH (no wound), but the 7cm cut would be GBH

Price likely be charged with assault occasioning GBH

To me though it could be classed as racially aggravated if we look at the definition of racially or religiously aggravated under s.28(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

(b)the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [F2racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) above—
"membership", in relation to a [F2racial or religious group], includes association with members of that group;

Source:
Legislation.gov.uk

Reading through my Student Police Officers handbook also, it states that the victim's membership can be in association with members of that group via marriage or partnership, ergo, because DAWSON's partner is black then in my mind surely this makes it more of a s.29 rather than a s.20.

Edited by Josh'Grizzly'Gregory, 12 March 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Jeebs]

Arrest them both for affray? Then I would expect it would go GBH + affray for Price & a Public Order offence for Dawson + affray.

Edited by Jeebs, 12 March 2012 - 07:22 PM.

[BristolSam]

You'd struggle getting a s5 for using the word 'whore' or 'tart' on their own once, imo.

I'd go more for a s4/4a as its intentionally directed words intended to cause HAD. Don't think you'd get away with a racially motivated since there's no obvious hostility towards that racial group but I guess that's a moot point in your essay?

GBH for the 2nd part although no doubt CPS would accept ABH for plea bargain. Unlikely for them to entertain the ashtray throwing since the GBH is the higher offence.

[Josh'Grizzly'Gregory]

Arrest them both for affray? Then I would expect it would go GBH + affray for Price & a Public Order offence for Dawson + affray.

Surely an affray is a public order offence under s.3 POA?

BristolSam, I have raised the issue of a racially motivated attack because there are statements to suggest that the attack might be racially motivated because of statements like:

she had nothing against "foreigners", she just didn't want them living near her

PRICE also comments that she thinks her house value is affected by DAWSON's partner, this to me suggests a possible alcohol fuelled racially motivated response.

Edited by Josh'Grizzly'Gregory, 12 March 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Jeebs]

Surely an affray is a public order offence under s.3 POA?

BristolSam, I have raised the issue of a racially motivated attack because there are statements to suggest that the attack might be racially motivated because of statements like:

she had nothing against "foreigners", she just didn't want them living near her

PRICE also comments that she thinks her house value is affected by DAWSON's partner, this to me suggests a possible alcohol fuelled racially motivated response.

I always thought affray was a common law offence rather than something encompassed in the POA. Just had a look on the web and it ceased to be a common law offence in 1987.

I'd probs go for s.4a or something in that case.

[BristolSam]

Surely an affray is a public order offence under s.3 POA?

BristolSam, I have raised the issue of a racially motivated attack because there are statements to suggest that the attack might be racially motivated because of statements like:

she had nothing against "foreigners", she just didn't want them living near her

PRICE also comments that she thinks her house value is affected by DAWSON's partner, this to me suggests a possible alcohol fuelled racially motivated response.

Well helps if you give the full facts in the question doesn't it

[Josh'Grizzly'Gregory]

Well helps if you give the full facts in the question doesn't it

I know, rookie mistake really wasn't it.

[Burnie]

I always thought affray was a common law offence rather than something encompassed in the POA. Just had a look on the web and it ceased to be a common law offence in 1987.

Public order act took a few common law offences and legislated them resulting in 6 main offences

Section 1 - Riot
Section 2 - Violent disorder
Section 3 - Affray
Section 4 - Fear or provocation of violence
Section 4a - Words etc intended to cause HAD
Section 5 - Words etc likely to cause HAD

Edited by Burnie, 12 March 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Gavin]

If we're talking charging standards then the injuries to Dawson would more than likely be charged as an ABH.

[BristolSam]

If we're talking charging standards then the injuries to Dawson would more than likely be charged as an ABH.

7cm cut to the head is quite bad though and would cause quite a lot of loss of blood. I'd stick with GBH with ABH on plea bargain

[btp pc]

Arrest both for affray as that is what you are immediatly presented with.
They will then both make counter allergations during interview.
This then means it's up to CPS to decide what they are charged with after all the facts are presented to them.

Keep it simple on arrest and then work slow time to achieve the result.

[Gavin]

7cm cut to the head is quite bad though and would cause quite a lot of loss of blood. I'd stick with GBH with ABH on plea bargain

Well yes it's not a nice injury but it would still be charged as ABH by CPS. Check out CPS Charging Standards

Arrest both for affray as that is what you are immediatly presented with.
They will then both make counter allergations during interview.
This then means it's up to CPS to decide what they are charged with after all the facts are presented to them.

Keep it simple on arrest and then work slow time to achieve the result.

That's all well and good but the OP asked what would be charged.

[Josh'Grizzly'Gregory]

To be fair, I wasn't looking for what the CPS would put. It is looking at what would YOU aim to get the charge to.

Edited by Josh'Grizzly'Gregory, 13 March 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[BristolSam]

Well yes it's not a nice injury but it would still be charged as ABH by CPS. Check out CPS Charging Standards



That's all well and good but the OP asked what would be charged.

Yeah thats what I was looking at, was thinking in terms of blood loss and combined with other injuries and it being a head wound.

To be fair, I wasn't looking for what the CPS would put. It is looking at what would YOU aim to get the charge to.

What I would look to get the charge to from a practical point of view or academic? Practically GBH which is going to involve CSI attending etc as initially you don't know the extent of the injuries and it's going to look pretty bad with such a large head wound, academically you'd be looking to argue the merits of GBH vs ABH and case law to show how injuries have been charged and decided.

[btp pc]

That's all well and good but the OP asked what would be charged.

My experiance with CPS/charging suggests that you never really know what they will charge the offender with.

True story: Officer gets stabbed. Suggested charge: Attempt murder. Actual charge: Affray.

Like I said who knows what the actual charge will turn out to be!

[SkinSte]

I've just finished a case study scenario for uni and thought I'd see what other people might suggest for an appropriate charge in the given circs. Please note I have already submitted this work with my decided charge for the case and before I give my decision I am intrigued to read what others would consider the following incident to be. In the scenario there is swearing and racial language so I apologise for any offence it may cause, also please note this scenario is entirely fictious.

DAWSON was walking home from the corner shop and saw her neighbour PRICE standing at the front of the pub. As DAWSON walks towards PRICE, DAWSON shouts "THERE GOES THAT BLACK MANS WHORE." Being very offended by this remark PRICE comments back, "ATLEAST I'M ONLY SLEEPING WITH ONE MAN AND NOT HALF THE TOWN YOU TART." PRICE then picks up an ashtray and throws it at DAWSON hitting her in the right shoulder and putting her off balance, as DAWSON regains her balance PRICE runs at DAWSON, grabs her by the hair and pulls her head down and proceeds to knee her in the face resulting in a broken nose, black eyes and a 7cm cut to her left eye.


So what is everyone's thoughts for the offence?

To be fair, I wasn't looking for what the CPS would put. It is looking at what would YOU aim to get the charge to.

You asked what would be an appropriate charge. If we just ignore CPS charging standards, what's the point?

Racially aggravated S4A for Dawson. ABH for Price.

[fence]

Dawson - Racially aggravated S4A Public Order.
Price - Wounding s20 OAPA.

I wouldn't go for affray because Dawson hasn't threatened any violence at all. Someone getting beaten up can't get arrested for affray...

Now Price has thrown an ash tray at Dawson, this would hurt but Price wants more there by going to further attack her or if I was to be clutching at straws to prove the intent I'd say a "repeated" attack on Dawson. Price's actions of grabbing Dawson by the hair and kneeing her in the face are quite serious, you know if you knee someone in the face you would be causing serious injury.

The reason why I have gone for wounding and not GBH is because they are different things, to wound means "In law wounds requires a breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or inner skin within the cheek or lip. Rupture of internal blood vessels is excluded. Minor wounds should not result in a section 20 charge". And seeing as broken nose isn't seen to be a GBH the only other as serious bit of legislation we could use other than ABH would be wounding.

As BristolSam said, 7cm cut to the face is going to be a lot of blood loss and quite a bit of damage.

But if we were saying what I'd aim to get the charge for I'd push it to a wounding with intent, and clutch at my straws for the repeated/further attack.

[btp pc]

I wouldn't go for affray because Dawson hasn't threatened any violence at all. Someone getting beaten up can't get arrested for affray...

Looks like I've been getting it wrong for the last 11 years along with all the custody Sgts that have authorised detention!

I'll let them know next time I see not only the BTP custody Sgts but all the Home Office ones I find myself stood in front of with prisoners on a regular basis.

Maybe at the end of the scenario described at the start of the thread it should have mentioned what the attending officer was initially confronted with on arrival. Just a though.

[fence]

Looks like I've been getting it wrong for the last 11 years along with all the custody Sgts that have authorised detention!

I'll let them know next time I see not only the BTP custody Sgts but all the Home Office ones I find myself stood in front of with prisoners on a regular basis.

Maybe at the end of the scenario described at the start of the thread it should have mentioned what the attending officer was initially confronted with on arrival. Just a though.

You can arrest for almost anything you like for P+E and get it authorised, getting a charge for affray from Dawsn out of the above scenario is a different story.....

[btp pc]

You can arrest for almost anything you like for P+E and get it authorised, getting a charge for affray from Dawsn out of the above scenario is a different story.....

I understand what you are saying with regards to what the eventual outcome may be.
Maybe I was trying to get at what I would arrest for on attending the incident and then what I would do from there. I just forgot to mention what advise I would seek post event from CPS.

As much as one person may be 'attacking' someone else you will not be initially aware of all the other facts leading up to that. As you will know no two incidents are ever the same.

I'll have seen two people fighting and to put an end to it both would have been locked up for the affray.

With regards to the charge I was trying to suggest that officers will see it differently to CPS who will always look for the easy option to free up the courts in my experiance.

I know, as I posted previously above mentioning the affray instead of attempt murder........another inch either way and you might not be reading this.

Keep those vests on out there guys!

As for the above scenario then yes possibly the charges would be more suited to ABH/Sec 4 etc but I had gone with what I would arrest for and neglected to follow through with what the investigation might reveal.