Crime - defruading vs killing

[Nitefly]

According to me furious wiki-ing, yes.

.... yeah

That wouldn't really make any sense, because in my example you could tie them up and punch them in the head and it might kill them and you would be done for murder, yet if it didn't kill them, they couldn't ever be done for the next most serious offence.

 

[elmarko]

You need to remember than GBH refers to causing harm in a very specific way, namely "wounding", not just causing general harm. Giving someone a black eye does not constitute GBH for example.

You misunderstand me, I'm talking about intent.

If you hit somebody you are intending to wound them, I'd argue the intent of assault is GBH (unless it's in self-defence).

There are requirements for something to be classed as GBH, punching someone does not always cause GBH due to these requirements.

For GBH to have been caused, the assault has to have caused a wound. A wound being "a division of the whole skin and not merely a division of the cuticle or upper layer", i.e a bruise is not a wound and neither is a broken bone.

Tbh, it sounds like the legal definition of wound needs to be readdressed to include other forms of assault.

 

[Fenris]

If you hit somebody you are intending to wound them

Doubtful, a wound is a rather specific injury according to the law, giving someone a broken nose or a black eye is not a wound.

 

[ChrisJSY]

I don't think you understand the meaning of "murder". Murder is defined by the intent to kill. In this case, there was no intent to kill, ergo: not murder or in other terms, manslaughter.

You're absolutely right, I made an error in my explanation.
What I was trying to say is that the outcome was to harm, the accident was killing someone. The fact is that it was the fault of the aggressor it happened at all.


I can sort of agree in that, if I was attacked and hit someone and they fell over and died, it was an accident (in self defence). But if I was attacked for no reason and died, I'm sure my family and friend would be out for as much punishment as possible and that if said person wasn't such an idiot then I'd be living on for the time being.

 

[Nitefly]

Tbh, it sounds like the legal definition of wound needs to be readdressed to include other forms of assault.

Sounds like you shouldn't be relying on wikipedia to summarise a hundred years of case law

Not that my memory from over 2 years ago is necessarily more reliable of course

 

[elmarko]

Doubtful, a wound is a rather specific injury according to the law, giving someone a broken nose or a black eye is not a wound.

I agree you are right on the definition, but why base how we punish crimes based on semantics?.

Would it not be logical to use the term "injury" (Grievous bodily injury) to encompass cutting wounds, broken bones, burns, severe bruising or anything else.

Sounds like you shouldn't be relying on wikipedia to summarise a hundred years of case law

Not that my memory from over 2 years ago is necessarily more reliable of course

To be totally honest I wasn't aware wound was a specific term for just broken skin, I had always believed it to be synonymous with injury.

 

[andi]

A single punch to the face isn't enough to justify GBH, not without some fairly serious other actions taken into consideration. It's just not realistic to expect someone intended to give someone "really serious" injuries by just one punch, unless they're Chuck Norris.

The court will have taken into consideration the fact that he's under 18, and the surrounding circumstances that led this to be a spur of the moment action, with no knowledge of what the consiquences would be.

 

[Nitefly]

As we are all currently wikipedia warrioring, here's something that should help clarify things:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a15

Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is really serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to really serious harm include:

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement; 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 or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;

serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury

The offences for s.18/20 are normally a crossover between GBH and malicious wounding. Wounding does have its own set of legal definitions.

 

[Fenris]

.... yeah

That wouldn't really make any sense, because in my example you could tie them up and punch them in the head and it might kill them and you would be done for murder, yet if it didn't kill them, they couldn't ever be done for the next most serious offence.

I would guess that breaking someone skull would constitute "really serious injury".

 

[Nitefly]

I would guess that breaking someone skull would constitute "really serious injury".

It does. Really serious 'injury' (bodily harm) is GBH, but you can also be convincted under the same offence for 'malicious wounding' which is something which has a large overlap with GBH.

It's not particuarly simple to define, but the section essentially is a very wide all catching 'umbrella' provision, providing that the harm done is 'serious'.

 

[Fenris]

It does. Really serious injury is GBH, but you can also be convincted under the same offence for 'malicious wounding' which is something which has a large overlap with GBH.

It's not particuarly simple to define, but the section essentially is a very wide all catching 'umbrella' provision, providing that the harm done is 'serious'.

Law really is a whole pile of stupid isn't it.

 

[Nitefly]

Law really is a whole pile of stupid isn't it.

At face value, absolutely! In reality, it has to be that complicated simply because facts and circumstances are also that complicated - an inevitability.

Sometimes though, the law is just written in a really stupid way. This is my favourite example.

Jurisdiction of courts to vary trusts.
(1)Where property, whether real or personal, is held on trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under any will, settlement or other disposition, the court may if it thinks fit by order approve on behalf of—
...
(b)any person (whether ascertained or not) who may become entitled, directly or indirectly, to an interest under the trusts as being at a future date or on the happening of a future event a person of any specified description or a member of any specified class of persons, so however that this paragraph shall not include any person who would be of that description, or a member of that class, as the case may be, if the said date had fallen or the said event had happened at the date of the application to the court

Bwuh?

It does make sense after someone has explained it to you though.

 

[andi]

I'm starting to love law. I wish I'd worked a bit harder at school and gone on to have done it in FE. I love all the odd little bits that are included, like the power to search someones hovercraft or renewable energy installation under PACE. Can see that one being handy

 

[yer_averagejoe]

You're absolutely right, I made an error in my explanation.
What I was trying to say is that the outcome was to harm, the accident was killing someone. The fact is that it was the fault of the aggressor it happened at all.


I can sort of agree in that, if I was attacked and hit someone and they fell over and died, it was an accident (in self defence). But if I was attacked for no reason and died, I'm sure my family and friend would be out for as much punishment as possible and that if said person wasn't such an idiot then I'd be living on for the time being.

I guess you need to look at it objectively rather than emotionally. In your first case, you'd still be responsible for manslaughter, though your sentence would probably be adjusted slightly to take into account you were acting in self defence. In your second, your family would be seeking a maximum sentence because of their upset. It is still an accident that you died, even if your attacker meant to harm you. He'd be done for manslaughter here, which would see him a longer sentence than if he'd just punched you but a shorter sentence then if he'd repeatedly punched you until he was sure you were dead.

 

[Nitefly]

I'm starting to love law. I wish I'd worked a bit harder at school and gone on to have done it in FE. I love all the odd little bits that are included, like the power to search someones hovercraft or renewable energy installation under PACE. Can see that one being handy

You are probably going to love that there's an entire hovercraft act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/59/enacted

I also enjoy that there is a specific business relief for loads of sensible things, but then at the bottom also 'equipment relating to space craft or space travel'

 

[andi]

I guess you need to look at it objectively rather than emotionally. In your first case, you'd still be responsible for manslaughter, though your sentence would probably be adjusted slightly to take into account you were acting in self defence. In your second, your family would be seeking a maximum sentence because of their upset. It is still an accident that you died, even if your attacker meant to harm you. He'd be done for manslaughter here, which would see him a longer sentence than if he'd just punched you but a shorter sentence then if he'd repeatedly punched you until he was sure you were dead.

In his first example, he'd be using his common law entitlement to defend himself. Wouldn't even be charged.

 

[TJM]

Giving a fraudster a long sentence stops them getting out in a couple of years to spend all the money as well as being a deterent to others. This guy has stashed millions and millions away

The courts can also make a confiscation order against fraudsters. If they default on it, the consequences can be severe. One guy (his name escapes me) had 10 years added to his sentence for not coughing up the money.

 

[Energize]

So despite the fact that the only bits you know about the case being the tiny amount reported in the papers, you still know far more than all the assorted lawyers and judge who heard ALL the evidence? Really? How? Psychic link?

We must base our conclusions on the available evidence, otherwise we could discuss nothing.

Yes, but there was no intent to cause GBH.

Intent seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Meridian]

We must base our conclusions on the available evidence, otherwise we could discuss nothing.



Intent seems pretty clear to me.

Congratulations: you've just proved my point. The whole idea of the court case was to prove intent, and what offence the intent was for. It would have been argued in great detail. But it wasn't reported, so you and I know nothing about what legal points were proved (or at least agreed by the jury) and how. However, you feel perfectly happy to spout off on the basis of pretty much nothing apart from your own pre-conceived opinions. As for the "discuss nothing" unless we had all the details, having that as a general rule on these forums would improve them no end.


M

 

[Skull]

Sounds like you shouldn't be relying on wikipedia to summarise a hundred years of case law

Not that my memory from over 2 years ago is necessarily more reliable of course

I think the critical point is that the statute says "wound or cause grievous bodily harm", which creates a clear distinction between the two. People thinking that breaking the skin is a requirement for s.18 or s.20 are not making that distinction.

As I said in another thread recently, that would make it possible for you to break all the major bones in someone's body with a sledgehammer and if you did so in a way that did not cause them to bleed (and die of course) the most you'd get is 6 months for ABH. That is not the case.