Nope. A magistrates court can only impose a maximum of a 6 month prison sentence for a single offence. If he's been charged with ABH then that carries a maximum term of 5 years. Dependant on the actual injuries caused, if he used a baseball bat he might have been charged with a section 20 GBH charge. If he's found guilty he'll be going down, that's a near certainty
This is pretty much what I've been told. Like I've said, I still find it difficult to believe he's done it and I have no ****ing idea how he'll cope with the nick.
Probably because the maximum sentence a Magistrates court can hand out is 6 months for any one offence or 12 months for more than one offence. Your mate is in serious s**t. Hope he has a good lawyer like...Atticus Finch , Perry Mason, et al
Depends on the injuries he caused to her doesn't it? If he's hurt her badly it would be Common Assault/ABH But it sounds like he might not have hit her so maybe this applies, from CPS website 'The offence of Common Assault carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. This will provide the court with adequate sentencing powers in most cases. ABH should generally be charged where the injuries and overall circumstances indicate that the offence merits clearly more than six months' imprisonment and where the prosecution intend to represent that the case is not suitable for summary trial. There may be exceptional cases where the injuries suffered by a victim are not serious and would usually amount to Common Assault but due to the presence of significant aggravating features (alone or in combination), they could more appropriately be charged as ABH contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This would only be where a sentence clearly in excess of six months' imprisonment ought to be available, having regard to the significant aggravating features.'
Its ridiculous that injuries effect such a thing. Surely intention is what should be judged. Why is an attempt different to actual when the person was just **** at whatever it was they were attempting?
It's always the way. Had an insurance claim once and the value / payout for that was based on physical injuries received. The insurers / courts must just have a menu of injuries with appropriate payout/sentence next to each one. I know with insurance it's all about how long the injuries will affect you, scarring, pain and such.
Compensation is different. That should be base don injuries (physical or mental) because its about how you've been effected by the incident (which you've said already). Someone committing a crime should be punished without it depending on how skillful they were in carrying out their act.
I dunno. Can't remember Rhc giving specifics, thought he had just threatened the girl and been intimidating. If he's smacked her he's in serious **** as you say, that's one of those yeah. Not an expert.
I think intent does come into the reckoning though. If I stab you and miss your organs I'd still be in deep ****, as I could be done for GBH with intent to kill
With it being a sustained attack i.e. more than one blow, on a woman. I reckon he'll get at least a 3 stretch.
I guess it comes down to opinion. I think someone failing shouldn't get less than if the had achieved their target. They should be treated the same.
I see where you're coming from but there still needs to be a distinction, because the intent can come down to subjective opinion, whereas murder is definitve. In addition the consequence of the crime for the victim is and should, always be a factor. The greater the impact the greater the sentence.
