Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
milkround said:
La Liga said:
milkround said:
La Liga said:
milkround said:
Also imo people are missing one thing. I have not been charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. Which is either really clever or really silly of the police (cps did not authorise charge in my case it was ps). I've been charged with common assault.
Why would they want to try and prove intent which would make it more difficult for no real extra gain.The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Sentencing is the same in which case? Common assault / assault PC? If that's what you mean you're wrong. Assault PC is subject to more serious sentencing.
Graveworm said:
When they charge with assault police, it has a higher sentencing guidelines than common assault BUT they don't need to prove any extra INTENT on the part of the person carrying out the assault.
Did anyone see the sentences handed out to those that assaulted police that I watched on TV the other night...£160 fine IIRCEdited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 19:53
When I say assault I'm talking about punch from behind and putting him on his arse!
alfie2244 said:
Graveworm said:
When they charge with assault police, it has a higher sentencing guidelines than common assault BUT they don't need to prove any extra INTENT on the part of the person carrying out the assault.
Did anyone see the sentences handed out to those that assaulted police that I watched on TV the other night...£160 fine IIRCEdited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 19:53
When I say assault I'm talking about punch from behind and putting him on his arse!
milkround said:
The same argument could be made for assault police. Why ever bother to charge with that when you need to prove the officer was acting within their lawful authority? Sentencing is the same in that case. So using the same line of thinking why do the CPS/Police ever charge with assault police?
For assault police the officer needs to be "in the execution of his/ her duty".The offence was put on the books so that low level assaults on police officers could be looked at differently and, potentially, offenders given greater sentences.
The reality, of course, is somewhat different and the likely outcome is a small fine and/ or community order.
If the assault is more serious then the offender is likely to be charged with s47, s20, s18, etc.
Red 4 said:
For assault police the officer needs to be "in the execution of his/ her duty".
The offence was put on the books so that low level assaults on police officers could be looked at differently and, potentially, offenders given greater sentences.
The reality, of course, is somewhat different and the likely outcome is a small fine and/ or community order.
If the assault is more serious then the offender is likely to be charged with s47, s20, s18, etc.
The point remains. If he had been arresting me I should have been charged with assault to resist arrest. If he had not been arresting me he had no legal authority to either touch me or stop me leaving. The offence was put on the books so that low level assaults on police officers could be looked at differently and, potentially, offenders given greater sentences.
The reality, of course, is somewhat different and the likely outcome is a small fine and/ or community order.
If the assault is more serious then the offender is likely to be charged with s47, s20, s18, etc.
I may be wide of the mark but that is how I see it. If he had reasonable grounds to arrest the charge should be one where you face 2 years in prison. I'm not trying to get out of anything and will accept a harsher sentence if I'm genuinely guilty - I just don't like the police playing games and trying to game the system.
La Liga said:
MYOB said:
milkround said:
We shall see what the CPS make of it when they finally have a look at it all.
Think the CPS has seen it already, hence you being charged. milkround said:
The point remains. If he had been arresting me I should have been charged with assault to resist arrest. If he had not been arresting me he had no legal authority to either touch me or stop me leaving.
I may be wide of the mark but that is how I see it. If he had reasonable grounds to arrest the charge should be one where you face 2 years in prison. I'm not trying to get out of anything and will accept a harsher sentence if I'm genuinely guilty - I just don't like the police playing games and trying to game the system.
They are not playing games. Even if both offences are made out they can choose which to charge. I may be wide of the mark but that is how I see it. If he had reasonable grounds to arrest the charge should be one where you face 2 years in prison. I'm not trying to get out of anything and will accept a harsher sentence if I'm genuinely guilty - I just don't like the police playing games and trying to game the system.
As has been said, if you assaulted him, it's common assault. If you assaulted "With intent to resist arrest" then it may be common assault OR assault with intent to resist arrest they charge. But it requires more than just that you assaulted him whilst he was arresting you you neeeded to at least have a good idea that you were being arrested and intend to resist that. His being a security guard will still be an aggravating factor for common assault.
For some time, the charging decisions for assault have reflected the sufficiency of sentencing powers and sentencing guidelines. If you punch a PC and cut them whilst they are arresting you have probably committed Common assault, ABH, wounding, wounding with intent, assault police, obstructing police, affray and assault with intent to resist arrest. What you get charged with is more reflective of the sentencing guidelines being appropriate rather than what is the most serious offence.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 21:54
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 22:13
MYOB said:
La Liga said:
MYOB said:
milkround said:
We shall see what the CPS make of it when they finally have a look at it all.
Think the CPS has seen it already, hence you being charged. milkround said:
The point remains. If he had been arresting me I should have been charged with assault to resist arrest. If he had not been arresting me he had no legal authority to either touch me or stop me leaving.
No you shouldn't. Did you have the intent to resist arrest?
No, you didn't. You used force intending to defend yourself as you've maintained throughout the topic and presented in interview.
So why would you think they'd be able to prove you intended to resist arrest beyond reasonable doubt?
Graveworm said:
milkround said:
The point remains. If he had been arresting me I should have been charged with assault to resist arrest. If he had not been arresting me he had no legal authority to either touch me or stop me leaving.
I may be wide of the mark but that is how I see it. If he had reasonable grounds to arrest the charge should be one where you face 2 years in prison. I'm not trying to get out of anything and will accept a harsher sentence if I'm genuinely guilty - I just don't like the police playing games and trying to game the system.
They are not playing games. Even if both offences are made out they can chose which to charge. I may be wide of the mark but that is how I see it. If he had reasonable grounds to arrest the charge should be one where you face 2 years in prison. I'm not trying to get out of anything and will accept a harsher sentence if I'm genuinely guilty - I just don't like the police playing games and trying to game the system.
As has been said, if you assaulted him, it's common assault. If you assaulted "With intent to resist arrest" then it may be common assault OR assault with intent to resist arrest they charge. But it requires more than just that you assaulted him whilst he was arresting you you neeeded to at least have a good idea that you were being arrested and intend to resist that. His being a security guard will still be an aggravating factor for common assault.
For some time, the charging decisions for assault have reflected the sufficiency of sentencing powers and sentencing guidelines. If you punch a PC and cut them whilst they are arresting you have probably committed Common assault, ABH, wounding, wounding with intent, assault police, obstructing police, affray and assault with intent to resist arrest. What you get charged with is more reflective of the sentencing guidelines being appropriate rather than what is the most serious offence.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 21:54
OP, your certainty that you've got the cps bang to rights with your clever argument is almost certainly complete nonsense.
I urge you to get legal representation, listen to them and stfu apart from what they say you can say.
Your only way not to be found guilty is to get professional advice and change your tack.
Anyway, I'm just repeating myself
Good luck, you sure need it.
Bert
I urge you to get legal representation, listen to them and stfu apart from what they say you can say.
Your only way not to be found guilty is to get professional advice and change your tack.
Anyway, I'm just repeating myself
Good luck, you sure need it.
Bert
hutchst said:
kestral said:
Don't forget milkround that if you had been charged with a s38 OAPA 1861 offence you could ask for a crown court and a jury.
Where as a common assault leaves you at the mercy of the Magistrates.
It's called strategic charging.
What do you think the strategy is?Where as a common assault leaves you at the mercy of the Magistrates.
It's called strategic charging.
A charge has to be proportionate, too. It's a low-level, minor injury scuffle. We don't want busy crown courts potentially wasting their time with it via a jury trial.
I may be wrong, but I imagine the assault with intent to resist arrest would require the CPS to be consulted pre-charge. If so, why would the police want to spend hours with the CPS when a common assault is more than adequate?
Thirdly, I never saw / heard of anyone arrested / charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. There are just some offences that are rarely, if ever used in the real world.
I may be wrong, but I imagine the assault with intent to resist arrest would require the CPS to be consulted pre-charge. If so, why would the police want to spend hours with the CPS when a common assault is more than adequate?
Thirdly, I never saw / heard of anyone arrested / charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. There are just some offences that are rarely, if ever used in the real world.
Vaud said:
La Liga said:
There are just some offences that are rarely, if ever used in the real world.
“wanton and furious driving” when applied to a bicycle? (very rare?)(section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)
La Liga said:
Vaud said:
La Liga said:
There are just some offences that are rarely, if ever used in the real world.
“wanton and furious driving” when applied to a bicycle? (very rare?)(section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff