Legal Situation.

Walkerie

Walkerie

Walkerie

Soldato
Joined
17 Mar 2005
Posts
4,042
Location
Home
Neither of which are me so do not ask.

Major edit my bad.

Character X
Character Y

X is seen taking a girl into a car who both Y and X know , this girl has been spiked and later Y finds out , later Y invites the guy to come round and settle it both are extremely drunk and Y believes X spiked the drink , X is quite aggressive at this point and Y goes in to fetch a knife , Y swings it at X a few times to deter him as X is a bigger guy and to make him back off , X takes the knife off Y and swings back and proceeds to cut him above the lip at that point they start grappling on the floor and Y hits X in the head 2-3 times and X doesnt get up , police turn up and take names and both parties to station . X Has admitted to everything and all of this was caught on cctv.

Any ideas what the consequences could be for X? and Y?
 
Last edited:
X and Y would be covered by assault or actual bodily harm. Probably could claim of provocation, both could be charged. A jury would have to decide about the actual mens rea - the girl at this point is irrelevant.
 
The jury don't decide mens rea, they decide on factual issues. Provocation doesn't come into the offences at all.

Hard to say the outcome but X is certainly going to be in a lot of trouble. Y less so.
 
I don't mean to be condescending but that is a very naive view.

Y may have created the situation but he has only committed assault and theatened X with an offensive weapon. X has committed a S.20 OATPA offence. You don't take a knife off someone, cut them and then proceed to beat them on the floor until they don't get up to defend yourself.

Yes ideally you might like to but he's in for a much tougher time than Y.
 
I think you're being a bit harsh claiming s20, it looks far more like s47 to me
 
Last edited:
You don't take a knife off someone, cut them and then proceed to beat them on the floor until they don't get up to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

You've taken it a little out of context in my view of things.

swings back and proceeds to cut him above the lip at that point they start grappling on the floor and Y hits X in the head 2-3 times and X doesnt get up , police turn up and take names and both parties to station
Click to expand...

It says Y swinged the knife, X got it off Y and swung back (defending himself maybe).
Then they both were on floor and Y hit x 3 times in head.

Y initiated knife attack, Y hit X three times to head.
 
Y brought the knife into the situation and caused an escalation of a situation that was unnecessary. X can reasonably claim that at this stage he was in fear of serious assault and was defending himself. He managed to disarm Y and took a few wild swings at him to get him to back off (this is self defence) and caught him with an unlucky swing.
Y then laid into him and gave him a hiding from which X couldn't get off the ground.

X defended himself, Y attempted to commit assault with a deadly weapon and is going to jail.
 
urm, all people saying Y will be in a lot of trouble, well, how can they prove Y didnt get the knife to defend hiself, hes a smaller guy so this could be seen as rational.
both are drunk, and its probably a case of no1 knowing what really happened unless it was caught on film(i saw cctv, but thought this was the spiking etc and not inside the flat etc?)

Chances are the X+Y thing will be both getting a slap on the wrist about it, as it is in Y's home and X has agreed to go round, both are drunk, X apparently is 1st to be aggressive.
X goes to jail, doesnt collect £200 and gets his name on sex offenders register for other thing
 
This is a good opportunity to revise my Criminal Law...

Based on the injuries suffered:

1. X's liabilities

- Y suffered wounds (assuming both layers of skin broken)
- Maximum possible offence for X is s.18 OAPA.
- However, he did not intend GBH which is the mens rea requirement of s.18 (not intention to cause wounding)
- So the maximum possible now is s.20 OAPA.
- It seems safe to assume that he intended to, or was reckless as to, actual bodily harm.
- Now, both the actus reus and mens rea for s.20 is established.
- Self defence - debatable. The burden of proof is on X to argue that it was a proportional use of force to protect himself against an imminent attack - I'm not sure whether grabbing the knife off the other guy and then proceeding to cut him with it counts as self defence.

Maximum penalty for s.20: 5 years
Intoxication is not a defence for a s.20 offence - you remain fully liable for causing a s.20 injury to another.


2. Y's liabilities

- It seems that X suffered no serious injuries - assuming it's just bruises etc, it's possibly difficult even to establish s.47.
- If the injuries can constitute s.47, then Y clearly has the mens rea for s.47, so it seems likely that s.47 will be established.

Maximum penalty for s.47: 5 years
Intoxication is not a defence for a s.47 offence - you remain fully liable for causing a s.47 injury to another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom