Common Assault = no criminal record?!
Discussion
Recently got caught up in a fracas between half a dozen highly hard teenagers (around 17 yrs old) picking on a single woman 
. One of them had actually stolen her handbag. Got a smack in the face for it but the lady got her bag back and they ran away, later the main alpha-twunt of the group was arrested.
Several witness statements, id parade etc etc.. got a letter from the prosecution saying they have changed the charge from assualt incidenting actual bodily harm (or something??) to common assualt.
Does this mean that afer ALL this the loser's going to get away without even a criminal record!!?
>>> Edited by funkihamsta on Saturday 12th April 10:21
. One of them had actually stolen her handbag. Got a smack in the face for it but the lady got her bag back and they ran away, later the main alpha-twunt of the group was arrested. Several witness statements, id parade etc etc.. got a letter from the prosecution saying they have changed the charge from assualt incidenting actual bodily harm (or something??) to common assualt.
Does this mean that afer ALL this the loser's going to get away without even a criminal record!!?
>>> Edited by funkihamsta on Saturday 12th April 10:21
Recently got caught up in a fracas between half a dozen highly hard teenagers (around 17 yrs old) picking on a single woman
Several witness statements, id parade etc etc.. got a letter from the prosecution saying they have changed the charge from assualt incidenting actual bodily harm (or something??) to common assualt.
Does this mean that afer ALL this the loser's going to get away without even a criminal record!!?
>>> Edited by funkihamsta on Saturday 12th April 10:21
they have droped the ABH and gone with common assult wich is basicly buger all.
if you want to screw him up and hes working sue him in civl court for common that will cost him.
Being charged with common assault means he can still have a record but for common assault rather than ABH. If it is his first offence then it may be dealt with by means of a caution. From what I have read it seems like the matter is going to court which is good.
It is then down to the magistrates to find him guilty of the offence. He is then awarded a criminal record with assault on it.
Nice one.
It is then down to the magistrates to find him guilty of the offence. He is then awarded a criminal record with assault on it.
Nice one.
The other option is to ask the Police to charge him with affray. As long as there are more than two people involved, and somebody other than the attacked is involved (you) he can be charged.
Either way he will probably get costs (£50 or so), and probably bound over for first offence or discharged as long as he is a good boy for 12 months.
Laws a total Sh*t, and bullies those who they can, and is leniant on the real criminals.
rant over
Either way he will probably get costs (£50 or so), and probably bound over for first offence or discharged as long as he is a good boy for 12 months.
Laws a total Sh*t, and bullies those who they can, and is leniant on the real criminals.
rant overAffray, thats a good one, however the police officer had to be present during the incident in order to charge the offender with it.
Good rant though, the magistrates could do with issuing a decent punishment for a change, but as we all know, they act on the advice of a clerk of the court, who is legally qualified, who in turn consults his law books / experience.
Good rant though, the magistrates could do with issuing a decent punishment for a change, but as we all know, they act on the advice of a clerk of the court, who is legally qualified, who in turn consults his law books / experience.
Re "Affray, thats a good one, however the police officer had to be present during the incident in order to charge the offender with it."
I don't believe a police officer has to be present during the incident in order that the offender can be so charged - I understand there are two limbs to affray both of which have to be satisifed
1) the use or threat of unlawful violence towards another
2) the aggressor must have displayed conduct such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their own personal safety.
The second limb indicates there is a standard re such conduct which is set by a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness - so such a person could in fact be hypothetical rather than actually present.
The offence envisages at least three people
1) the person using/threatening unlawful violence
2) the person at whom the violence or threat is directed
3) the person of reasonable firmness, who need not actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
The offence is for the protection of the bystander so it is not whether person 2) so feared for their personal safety (there are other laws for the protection of people at whom violence is directly aimed), but whether person 3), hypothetical or actually present, would have so feared - in that they feared they would be caught up the violence themselves-ie it's different if could just moved away than if confined small space.
I don't believe a police officer has to be present during the incident in order that the offender can be so charged - I understand there are two limbs to affray both of which have to be satisifed
1) the use or threat of unlawful violence towards another
2) the aggressor must have displayed conduct such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their own personal safety.
The second limb indicates there is a standard re such conduct which is set by a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness - so such a person could in fact be hypothetical rather than actually present.
The offence envisages at least three people
1) the person using/threatening unlawful violence
2) the person at whom the violence or threat is directed
3) the person of reasonable firmness, who need not actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
The offence is for the protection of the bystander so it is not whether person 2) so feared for their personal safety (there are other laws for the protection of people at whom violence is directly aimed), but whether person 3), hypothetical or actually present, would have so feared - in that they feared they would be caught up the violence themselves-ie it's different if could just moved away than if confined small space.
Must disagree with you on that one Claudette.
Affray is a found committing offence.
Section 3 of the public order act
"A person is guilty of affray if he/she uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his/her conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety"
Section 3(2) States "If 2 or more persons use or threaten violence it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered.
Section 3(3) States "A threat cannot be by use of words alone"
Section 3(4) States "No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be present at the scene"
Section 3(5) States "May be in public places"
The offence is liable to 3 yrs imprisonment, and
Section 3(6) States "A Constable may arrest without warrant anyone he/she reasonably suspects is committing affray."
Our definitions are the same, however the 'found committing' is the finite point.
I have knowledge of this, having arrested someone years ago for affray after a pub fight involving a group.
When the custody SGT heard my reason for arrest, and noted that I was not actually at the scene when the affray was committed, he suitably admonished me.
However, I do agree it would be nice to charge the offender with Affray..
Affray is a found committing offence.
Section 3 of the public order act
"A person is guilty of affray if he/she uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his/her conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety"
Section 3(2) States "If 2 or more persons use or threaten violence it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered.
Section 3(3) States "A threat cannot be by use of words alone"
Section 3(4) States "No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be present at the scene"
Section 3(5) States "May be in public places"
The offence is liable to 3 yrs imprisonment, and
Section 3(6) States "A Constable may arrest without warrant anyone he/she reasonably suspects is committing affray."
Our definitions are the same, however the 'found committing' is the finite point.
I have knowledge of this, having arrested someone years ago for affray after a pub fight involving a group.
When the custody SGT heard my reason for arrest, and noted that I was not actually at the scene when the affray was committed, he suitably admonished me.
However, I do agree it would be nice to charge the offender with Affray..
Hi Mike, well I do fully admit that our laws are pretty much unfathomable to me...but on this one I am giving info from photocopies given to me some time ago from something called Case and Comment which I expect you know of and is, I understand, a respected source.
The info is from two cases given re Affray and they are
R v Davison
Court of Appeal Criminal Division: Woolf LJ, French and Cresswell JJ: June 7 1991
and
R v Sanchez
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Simon Brown LJ, Waterhouse and Ognall JJ: February 20 1996
You say "Section 3(6) States "A Constable may arrest without warrant anyone he/she reasonably suspects is committing affray." but I think we are talking about two different aspects - isn't the point of what you are saying re When an officer can 'arrest without warrant' for the offence (rather than that the conduct can only be considered Affray if it is witnessed by an officer?)
Wouldn't it be the case that a person engaging in such conduct could subsequently be charged with Affray after being arrested With a warrant or via summons (or whatever happens)?
>> Edited by claudette on Sunday 13th April 02:27
The info is from two cases given re Affray and they are
R v Davison
Court of Appeal Criminal Division: Woolf LJ, French and Cresswell JJ: June 7 1991
and
R v Sanchez
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Simon Brown LJ, Waterhouse and Ognall JJ: February 20 1996
You say "Section 3(6) States "A Constable may arrest without warrant anyone he/she reasonably suspects is committing affray." but I think we are talking about two different aspects - isn't the point of what you are saying re When an officer can 'arrest without warrant' for the offence (rather than that the conduct can only be considered Affray if it is witnessed by an officer?)
Wouldn't it be the case that a person engaging in such conduct could subsequently be charged with Affray after being arrested With a warrant or via summons (or whatever happens)?
>> Edited by claudette on Sunday 13th April 02:27
I think the charge has probably been reduced to a lesser charge with a greater chance of a conviction. I was attacked by a scrote with a weapon some years ago. After all the hearings which he never attended he was convicted and eventually fined. I occasionally get the odd £2 cheque and click my heals with glee at the thought of spending it. He should have been given 100 hours community service. Do lowlife's ever become of use to society or do they just keep draining the system?
Totally agree boosted, had someone bash me about with a bat once, spent a day in hospital, Xrays, no feeling in my arm for quite a whil, he was convicted of ABH, and assault PC, fined £70!! (A previous punter was fined over £100 for shoplifting). This £70 was due to be paid in compensation, I have never recieved a penny, and nobody chases it up either. Saying that, I tried to find him as there is a warrant out for him.
Claudette.... My brain is bursting, Sunday morning and all that!!!! Suffice to say that I have double checked, and had a look at my books as well (brushed the dust off!!!) and from a patrol officers point of view, I would have to witness the affray in order to arrest. I would not have to apply for a warrant at the bench prior to arrest.
What about....... going for the charge of "Violent disorder (S2 POA)" This usually would be for 12 or more, but can count for 3 persons. Violent disorder is a cracker, and carries a better punishment.... One to think of..
Regards.
Claudette.... My brain is bursting, Sunday morning and all that!!!! Suffice to say that I have double checked, and had a look at my books as well (brushed the dust off!!!) and from a patrol officers point of view, I would have to witness the affray in order to arrest. I would not have to apply for a warrant at the bench prior to arrest.
What about....... going for the charge of "Violent disorder (S2 POA)" This usually would be for 12 or more, but can count for 3 persons. Violent disorder is a cracker, and carries a better punishment.... One to think of..
Regards.
So:
It is going to court, unless the universal constant gets altered by an all powerful godlike creature, he's going to be found guilty of common assualt. (He hit me and another bystander who tried to get involved.) So this will be sufficient to get him a criminal record?
Don't really about care about the punishment. Mainly because he wont get 'punished' as we all know.
It is going to court, unless the universal constant gets altered by an all powerful godlike creature, he's going to be found guilty of common assualt. (He hit me and another bystander who tried to get involved.) So this will be sufficient to get him a criminal record?
Don't really about care about the punishment. Mainly because he wont get 'punished' as we all know.
Spot on Claudette, My apologies I didnt realise that was what you meant. To arrest for affray you have to witness, but as we all know, there are many times where different charges are brought post interview etc.
I am glad we got to the bottom of that one!!
Best wishes, and good luck in the speeding case.
Mike.
I am glad we got to the bottom of that one!!
Best wishes, and good luck in the speeding case.
Mike.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff