After stopping a suspect yesterday and for jumping up and legging it after the guy, despite being stabbed four times, and despite being unarmed, PC Nigel Albuery is nominated the Over-paid, Gold-Plated-Pensioned Public Sector Worker of the Month!
And despite being stabbed muliple times to the upper torso, CPS decided to charge the offender with GBH. I guess they feel that despite plunging a knife repeatedly into someone's body, the offender only had the intent to make it sting a bit.
|
...CPS decided to charge the offender with GBH. I guess they feel that despite plunging a knife repeatedly into someone's body, the offender only had the intent to make it sting a bit...
I've checked a few press reports, of which the BBC link below is one.
All say the defendant in this case, Alastair Gregson, 18, is charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
This is an offence known as a section 18 offence, because it is contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.
There is sometimes confusion over the wording of this offence.
Some lawyers always use 'grievous bodily harm', and others only use 'wounding' if the skin is broken.
Thus, were I to attack mlc with a stick and beat him several times, even breaking bones, but not causing bleeding, I could be charged with 'causing grievous bodily harm with intent do grievous bodily harm'.
Were I to attack mlc with a knife, stabbing him several times, which would obviously cause bleeding, I could be charged with 'causing grievous bodily harm with intent do grievous bodily harm' or 'wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm'.
But it's the same charge, still a section 18.
The lesser charge referred to by mlc is contrary to section 20, and is simply 'causing grievous bodily harm', or when blood is spilt 'unlawful wounding' - the crucial difference being no mention of intent.
Simple 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' is the next step down again, and is known as a section 47, because it is contrary to section 47 of the same act.
Apologies for the civics lesson, but these three charges crop up all the time so are worth knowing about.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/18
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13481203
|
I may have him wrong, but I think MLC is indicating that the person should have been charged with
attempted murder under section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
|
Could be, although I took the phrase: 'the offender only had the intent to make it sting a bit' to mean he lacked intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Section 18 carries a maximum of life imprisonment and is much easier to prove than attempted murder.
|
Zero- thank you.
I thought it was simple enough.
|
...I thought it was simple enough...
No you didn't, you thought the CPS had charged simple GBH, which is what your OP says and what that InspectorGadget website said, although it's been changed now.
InspectorGadget is also where you got the thread title from, although that may also have been changed.
|
I give up!
Are you naturally like this or do you practice really hard?
|
The point was he was charged with sec 18. Nice and easy for the CPS. It should have been attempted murder, which Zero managed to get easily enough.
|
...I give up!...
So where did you get the thread title from?
Seems a strange one for a copper to pick for a story about a stabbed copper.
Big coincidence the same title appeared on Inspector Gadget.
Even bigger coincidence Gadget happened to get the wrong charge, same as you.
|
Iffy, it seems strange that you are blind to mlc's irony (or sarcasm) given that you have a leaning towards these things yourself. Like Zero and I suppose most others, I understood his OP immediately. It is even stranger that you, a respectable-sounding person much of the time and one with some practical knowledge of the law it seems, appear to have it in for the fuzz in a quarrelsome sort of way. Is there a back-story here? Have you ever been fitted up for a crime you haven't committed or given a bashing by the riot squad while going about your innocent business?
Some years ago I met a mad woman whose theory was that the police were responsible for 'all crime'. It should be obvious to a man of experience that they are only responsible for some.
Were you to ask mlc and Westpig what they think of the officer who seems to have killed the newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson during that city demo, they might say something about the difficulty of policing such events. But my guess is that they would not approve of that officer's behaviour.
|
>> Iffy, it seems strange that you are blind to mlc's irony (or sarcasm) given that
>> you have a leaning towards these things yourself. Like Zero and I suppose most others,
>> I understood his OP immediately.
>>
I have learnt from experience that irony is very difficult to do on a forum. Perhaps it's because the writing is in black and white, it makes people see only the black and white and not read between the lines.
|
|
I believe that Iffy has chosen his name for good reason.
|
I have no problem with the initial post which to me was making the point that the police shouldn't have their pay and conditions attacked, because they have a lot to put up with - including being stabbed, and the attacker being charged with a less serious offence than they might be.
I don't have to agree that police rewards should be more or less fireproof than some others, but that's neither here nor there, and I perfectly understand why mlc would make such a point.
Neither do I have a problem with Iffy's first and second posts, taken together - which seem to say (albeit at some length) that
- the actual charge was more serious than the one implied by mlc
- it can carry a life sentence, so the opportunity is there for a court to impose a severe sentence if it is appropriate
- the burden of proof on the prosecution is lower than for a charge of attempted murder, so the risk of the offender being found not guilty on the basis that he didn't intend to kill the victim is removed.
I don't think I am raising a novel point or one that will be unknown to mlc or Iffy - the same point is debated here -
www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/28368-what-is-attempted-murder/
So should he have been charged with attempted murder? Would it be possible for him to be charged with AM and then found guilty of a lesser offence, or would he just walk if AM couldn't be proved? Having no personal experience of this sort of thing I'm interested to know.
|
...So should he have been charged with attempted murder?...
Attempted murder is known to be one of the hardest charges to prove because you literally have to prove the defendant attempted to murder the victim.
The charge is, strangely, harder to prove than murder, because for murder you only have to prove the defendant intended serious harm, and his actions resulted in the death of the victim.
Most juries would accept fairly readily that if I stab someone several times, I must have intended to do them serious harm, but getting a jury to also find I intended to kill the victim is difficult.
So prosecutors tend to work on the principle that an almost nailed-on section 18 is much better than a risky attempted murder.
...Would it be possible for him to be charged with AM and then found guilty of a lesser offence...
It appears sect 18 and attempted murder could be statutory alternatives, so the answer to the above question is probably yes.
But from this link, we are in legal precedent/argument territory, so the prosecutor may not want to go there.
www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Analysis/alternative-verdicts.html
What may happen is the defendant pleads guilty in front of the jury to the lesser offence of section 20 - no intent - leaving the prosecution to go to trial on the issue of intent.
This would be a reasonable tactic from the defendant's point of view because sect 20 would almost inevitably carry a lower sentence, and he could claim credit for pleading guilty.
|
Good post and interesting link, thank you. While natural justice for me indicates a charge of attempted murder would be entirely appropriate, clearly the matter isn't simple.
Nevertheless, my non-expert conclusion is that it should be reasonable to charge with attempted murder on the basis that it might be parlayed into a S.18 GBH, rather than S.18 GBH which could end up as a S.20. If you can't reasonably expect to prove intent when a knife is involved and the victim has been stabbed in the chest, then the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
Oh - for a moment there, I forgot that they have!
|
|
You forget the public interest angle. Its far better to charge someone who stabbed a policeman with attempted murder, than the "perceived" lesser charge of GBH. Plus you can be sure that if the S.1 AM does not stick, the jury can be directed into a guilty S.18 GBH, and the judge will be minded to sentence at the top end of the tariff.
|
>> You forget the public interest angle. Its far better to charge someone who stabbed a
>> policeman with attempted murder, than the "perceived" lesser charge of GBH. Plus you can be
>> sure that if the S.1 AM does not stick, the jury can be directed into
>> a guilty S.18 GBH, and the judge will be minded to sentence at the top
>> end of the tariff.
>>
I actually agreed with you on the AM charge Z. But there are obviously grey bits for the CPS to have a debate about. Given the apparent potential difficulty of making intent to kill with the element of pre-meditation stick, it wouldn't be surprising if they went for what they considered the best bet for securing the S. 18 conviction. I find it difficult to believe they could have any other motive than that, could they? What might it be? Not targets again surely?
|
|
I think the OP was quite clear and attempted murder does seem more reasonable. It sounds like the defendant is getting off lightly.
|
I read the original post yesterday and noted the sarcasm.
I suspect the OP was fully aware of why the CPS had gone with that decision.
However, like lorry drivers the police so often carry a chip on their shoulder and portray the image that the Public hates them.
The way the original post was worded was provocative and designed to give this impression.
Thanks to those above, Bromptonaut and iffy, for giving us a full and frank explanation of the actions of the CPS........now, discuss nicely without fighting please.
Pat
|
>> I read the original post yesterday and noted the sarcasm.
>>
>> I suspect the OP was fully aware of why the CPS had gone with that
>> decision.
>>
>> However, like lorry drivers the police so often carry a chip on their shoulder and
>> portray the image that the Public hates them.
I think the post showed anger at what seems to be a light charge, not unreasonable IMO. I suspect that a certain section of the public that meet the police more often than usual do indeed hate them.
>> The way the original post was worded was provocative and designed to give this impression.
Sarcastic for sure.
>> Thanks to those above, Bromptonaut and iffy, for giving us a full and frank explanation
>> of the actions of the CPS........now, discuss nicely without fighting please.
>>
>> Pat
I think you meant Iffy and Manatee. I can see the logic behind not charging the person with attempted murder having read the above posts. But I can understand the anger behind Midlifecrisis's post, the charge does seem risible. I guess the true test is the outcome. If the defendent is found guilty (a formality I would have thought), and given that the copper is in hospital, and could perhaps have suffered very severe injuries if not death, then I would hope for a LONG custodial sentence. If he gets, heavens forbid, a suspended sentence, or something silly like a few months inside, then the country really has gone down hill.
Getting back to the technical stuff, when someone repeatedly stabs someone in an attack, such that they are hospitalised, surely the discussion of whether or not the attacker intended to murder the victim is rather academic. "No your honour, I intended to apply a few light stabs to non vital organs, it was never on my mind to kill the person, no no nooo, shocking suggestion, how dare you."
My own experience of the legal system is that it is very stupid. And dare I say framed to provide clever lawyers with work. A friend got a criminal record for leaving a message on an answering machine saying "If you beat up my sister again, I'll kick the life out of you". The person had been beating up my friend's sister, and took the tape to the police. He now hates the police. I tried to explain that they can only work on the basis of evidence. I had a frightening experience in a petrol station forecourt where I thought I was about to be beaten up, and so did the attendent. But I could not press a charge against the 'assailant' because his Scottish accent was so thick I could not hear a direct threat of assault. Every other word was the f word, the other ones were unintelligible. The tone was aggressive. I was very frightened. My recent experience of harassment by youths shows that the law favours the criminal and their 'human rights'.
|
"My recent experience of harassment by youths shows that the law favours the criminal and their 'human rights'. "
Its not the law but the system that favours the criminal and their 'human rights'.
|
|
European law perhaps Fc? There's something that resembles a dual system, one overlaying the other, with judges often directed from some region in the sky. Anyway that's an impression one gets. I'm not learned in these matters at all.
|
Thanks Leif, I did indeed mean Manatee and not Bromptonaut.
Pat
|
This country needs to stop messing about. He pulled a knife and stabbed him more than once.
You put him in jail for a minimum of 20 years and for stabbing a PC it should be an instant life term.
|
|
Export these people to america, they have plenty of space in their tent camps, prob cheaper too.
|
Overpaid Public Sector Worker of the month - Iffy
