|
Benbay001
2,031 posts
27 months
|
jaf01uk said: Equal rights mean equal lefts surely? I'm 100% kidding, but as mentioned earlier there are some very violent females out there too, that guy on the video is pond scum and deserves to be treated as the same... I dont see why you should be 100% kidding though. If a woman wants to physically attack you, there is no reason why you shouldnt strike back. If it wasnt hurting me i wouldnt hit back, but then again, if it wasnt hurting me i wouldnt hit a bloke back. Maybe this is why im single? Scratch that.. this is why im single...
|
|
|
OpulentBob
3,141 posts
50 months
|
I don't know them, but they look about my age, in "my" town, I'll forward it on to friends.
|
|
|
CharlieCrocodile
521 posts
23 months
|
|
|
bigandclever
6,406 posts
108 months
|
|
|
carreauchompeur
10,823 posts
74 months
|
|
|
carinaman
3,520 posts
42 months
|
|
|
carreauchompeur
10,823 posts
74 months
|
carinaman said: Massively contradictory article though... Mentioning really serious injury, crippling etc but then saying that he was arrested for common assault and then the time limit for prosecution expired. If she was really seriously injured, then he would have been charged with ABH/GBH. The fact that he wasn't, and that a prosecution didn't take place, means that, presumably, the injuries mentioned didn't come from the assault. Still utter scum, but the Wail has done a treat on this one.
|
|
|
RtdRacer
1,274 posts
71 months
|
carreauchompeur said: Massively contradictory article though... Mentioning really serious injury, crippling etc but then saying that he was arrested for common assault and then the time limit for prosecution expired.
If she was really seriously injured, then he would have been charged with ABH/GBH. The fact that he wasn't, and that a prosecution didn't take place, means that, presumably, the injuries mentioned didn't come from the assault.
Still utter scum, but the Wail has done a treat on this one. "Doctors have also diagnosed a degenerative disease affecting her nerves which was probably triggered by the injuries she sustained." So, the Mail has harped on about the crippling, debilitating suffering she's undergone...which isn't actually anything to do with the assault. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. But bloody awful he wasn't prosecuted - poor show by CPS/Police.
|
|
|
carreauchompeur
10,823 posts
74 months
|
RtdRacer said: But bloody awful he wasn't prosecuted - poor show by CPS/Police. Oh, undoubtedly. I would guess it was dealt with by an inexperienced cop who didn't have one eye on the likely charge and the 6 month limit.
|
|
|
La Liga
791 posts
26 months
|
I seem to recall the video was quite old when the OP posted it (video is private now) - was it not already statute barred prior to the arrest? The offence of Affray said: An offence under section 3 is triable either way.
Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:
- unlawful violence;
- towards another;
- and his conduct is such as would cause;
- a person of reasonable firmness;
- present at the scene;
- to fear for his personal safety.
The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons. Mere words are not enough. Violent conduct towards property alone is not sufficient for the purposes of an offence under section 3. For a definition of 'violence' in affray see section 8 of the Act .
The notional bystander test is explained in the case of (R v Sanchez [1996] Crim L R 572 CA), and asserts that the hypothetical bystander, rather than the victim, must be put in fear for his or her personal safety. Apart from the hypothetical bystander, there must be present a 'victim' against whom the violence is to be directed (I & Others v DPP (2002) 1 AC 285 HL).
It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focused solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out (Leeson v DPP, unreported (2010)). Common sense would dictate that the above has been met, although the problem is that I only consider this offence in light of summary offences being unavailable. It's not a substitute in those circumstances which is probably why it was ruled-out. Regardless, justice hasn't been done. I hope she's looking a civil action (assuming it doesn't have similar time limits).
|
|
|
La Liga
791 posts
26 months
|
carreauchompeur said: RtdRacer said: But bloody awful he wasn't prosecuted - poor show by CPS/Police. Oh, undoubtedly. I would guess it was dealt with by an inexperienced cop who didn't have one eye on the likely charge and the 6 month limit. I've just seen the links above. It was statute barred a long time before the arrest.
|
|
