Bail before being charged- what happens next?
ARWadsworth
people were involved.
He was arrested for GBH with intent and released on bail.
As far as I can tell he has been released on bail for further enquiries to
be made and not actually been charged.
I have a couple of questions.
1. When he goes back to the police station (he attends tommorrow) what
happens. If he is charged will he be locked up before attending a
magistrates court to try to get bail or will he be rebailed to attend a
court and then remanded. Remand may be an option on this one due to peoples
injuries.
2. Solicitors fees. I do believe duty solicitors are free until you are
charged (I really do not know which is why I am asking here). If he is
charged does he then have to pay for his solicitor for further work done by
them. If so, at that point can he choose a new solicitor to take his case on
(ie one with a better reputation for getting people off than the duty
solicitor who attended)
Adam
Dr Zoidberg
> My apprentice got into a brawl on a night out a couple of weeks ago. 13
> people were involved.
>
> He was arrested for GBH with intent and released on bail.
>
> As far as I can tell he has been released on bail for further enquiries to
> be made and not actually been charged.
>
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1. When he goes back to the police station (he attends tommorrow) what
> happens.
They will either re-interview if they have more evidence and then probably charge , re-bail if they need to , or release him without charge
> If he is charged will he be locked up before attending a
> magistrates court to try to get bail or will he be rebailed to attend a
> court and then remanded. Remand may be an option on this one due to peoples
> injuries.
There are specific grounds that can be used to justify keeping him until he can be put in front of the court.
The most likely ones are because they believe he would fail to show up , or because he might try and interfere with witnesses.
This sort of cases are in the minority and I don't believe that just the severity of injuries would be grounds to remand him.
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
Richard Miller
<adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>My apprentice got into a brawl on a night out a couple of weeks ago. 13
>people were involved.
>
>He was arrested for GBH with intent and released on bail.
>
>As far as I can tell he has been released on bail for further enquiries to
>be made and not actually been charged.
>
>I have a couple of questions.
>
>1. When he goes back to the police station (he attends tommorrow) what
>happens.
First, before he goes, he could speak to a solicitor and arrange for
attendance at the bailback. Failing that, for an offence of this
seriousness, he absolutely must insist on speaking to the duty solicitor
before anything happens, and he must wait for the duty solicitor, not be
put off by police lies about how long he will be kept waiting and how
much easier it would be to do without.
> If he is charged will he be locked up before attending a
>magistrates court to try to get bail or will he be rebailed to attend a
>court and then remanded. Remand may be an option on this one due to peoples
>injuries.
For GBH with intent, remand in custody is a virtual certainty. However,
depending on the circumstances, he may be charged with a lesser offence.
It is still more likely than not that he will be remanded in custody if
charged. He may just be bailed again to return.
>
>2. Solicitors fees. I do believe duty solicitors are free until you are
>charged (I really do not know which is why I am asking here).
Yes, they are.
>If he is
>charged does he then have to pay for his solicitor for further work done by
>them.
If the case is being heard in the Magistrates Court, there is a means
test which may or may not lead to him having to pay.
If it is heard in the Crown Court legal aid is automatically free in
every case.
>If so, at that point can he choose a new solicitor to take his case on
>(ie one with a better reputation for getting people off than the duty
>solicitor who attended)
Don't knock the duty solicitor. They are the same private practice
solicitors who do own client work.
But yes, he can change to a different solicitor after being charged if
he wishes.
--
Richard Miller
ARWadsworth
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Sf07enaO...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
Thank you very much for the replies.
He had just been bailed again for a couple of months. I have told him that
he must always wait for his solicitor.
I suspect that it will take a long time for anything to happen due to the
number of people involved plus witnesses statements. I have also discovered
it is section 18 that he was arrested for and if he is charged with that
then it will be Crown Court.
Adam
Rusty_Hinge
from "ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> contains these words:
> My apprentice got into a brawl on a night out a couple of weeks ago. 13
> people were involved.
> He was arrested for GBH with intent and released on bail.
> As far as I can tell he has been released on bail for further enquiries to
> be made and not actually been charged.
> I have a couple of questions.
> 1. When he goes back to the police station (he attends tommorrow) what
> happens. If he is charged will he be locked up before attending a
> magistrates court to try to get bail or will he be rebailed to attend a
> court and then remanded. Remand may be an option on this one due to peoples
> injuries.
It rather depends on where the enquiries lead. If he surrenders to bail
at the appointed time, it's likely, but not certain, that he will be
bailed again if he is to be charged.
He may be offered the choice of being charged, or accepting a caution.
In that case, he really does need to speak to a solicitor AND TELL HIM
THE TRUTH - as a caution will stand as a criminal conviction.
> 2. Solicitors fees. I do believe duty solicitors are free until you are
> charged (I really do not know which is why I am asking here). If he is
> charged does he then have to pay for his solicitor for further work done by
> them. If so, at that point can he choose a new solicitor to take his
> case on
> (ie one with a better reputation for getting people off than the duty
> solicitor who attended)
Can't help there, but if his means are slim, he'll get a solicitor
provided by the State, if I'm not much mistaken
--
Rusty
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Richard Miller
Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>It rather depends on where the enquiries lead. If he surrenders to bail
>at the appointed time, it's likely, but not certain, that he will be
>bailed again if he is to be charged.
>
>He may be offered the choice of being charged, or accepting a caution.
>In that case, he really does need to speak to a solicitor AND TELL HIM
>THE TRUTH - as a caution will stand as a criminal conviction.
Section 18 to a caution would be an astonishing outcome. It would be
equivalent to cautioning someone for attempted murder or rape.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
ARWadsworth <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>I suspect that it will take a long time for anything to happen due to
>the number of people involved plus witnesses statements.
Quite possible.
> I have also discovered it is section 18 that he was arrested for and
>if he is charged with that then it will be Crown Court.
Section 18 - GBH with intent - is one of the most serious offences there
is. If the victim were to die of their injuries, this would be a murder
charge. Even if the victim does not die, the crime carries a possible
life sentence. So be under no illusion as to just how serious this is.
--
Richard Miller
Patrick Gosling
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Section 18 to a caution would be an astonishing outcome. It would be
>equivalent to cautioning someone for attempted murder or rape.
I note that cautions for rape are not unheard of:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm>
(8000 sex offenders have been cautioned in England in the past five years
(to Jun 2007), of which 240 (or 48 per year) were for rape)
To give some context, the number of successful convictions in prosecutions
for rape was aprox 1080 in 2006-7 and 1288 in 2007-8 .
[ extracted from <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/181_08/> ]
So we're looking at cautions in around 5% of guilty cases of rape, it seems.
[ relatedly, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7862633.stm> indicates that
57% of those found guilty of serious offences were offered and accepted
a caution ]
I do wonder if anyone ever receives and accepts a caution for murder,
though!
-patrick.
Martin Bonner
> In article <+c9AORErV37JF...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
I can imagine it happening if a spouse smothers their terminally ill
partner who is suffering greatly. Particularly if the murderer is
themselves only expected to live a little while.
Murder covers quite a range of offences.
Richard Miller
<jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes
>In article <+c9AOREr...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Section 18 to a caution would be an astonishing outcome. It would be
>>equivalent to cautioning someone for attempted murder or rape.
>
>I note that cautions for rape are not unheard of:
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm>
>(8000 sex offenders have been cautioned in England in the past five years
>(to Jun 2007), of which 240 (or 48 per year) were for rape)
Yes, I was aware of this recent report. I thought it shocking at the
time.
>
>To give some context, the number of successful convictions in prosecutions
>for rape was aprox 1080 in 2006-7 and 1288 in 2007-8 .
>[ extracted from <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/181_08/> ]
>
>So we're looking at cautions in around 5% of guilty cases of rape, it seems.
>
>[ relatedly, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7862633.stm> indicates that
>57% of those found guilty of serious offences were offered and accepted
>a caution ]
>
>I do wonder if anyone ever receives and accepts a caution for murder,
>though!
>
>-patrick.
>
--
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <gsqb93$i0b$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Patrick Gosling
><jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes
>>In article <+c9AOREr...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
>>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Section 18 to a caution would be an astonishing outcome. It would be
>>>equivalent to cautioning someone for attempted murder or rape.
>>
>>I note that cautions for rape are not unheard of:
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm>
>>(8000 sex offenders have been cautioned in England in the past five years
>>(to Jun 2007), of which 240 (or 48 per year) were for rape)
>
>Yes, I was aware of this recent report. I thought it shocking at the
>time.
I suspect that they're all at the "drunk boyfriend won't take 'no' for
an answer" end of the scale, though, and the caution is agreed with
the victim as an appropriate punishment. The legal definition of rape
is such that it covers an extremely wide range of actions ranging from
the horrific to the near-trivial.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
I would certainly hope that is the answer. It is difficult to know
without further information.
--
Richard Miller
ARWadsworth
No one is going to die. We can do nothing but wait now. We do understand how
serious the offence is.
Another question.
At some point (as I see it) he will be charged, allowed to go free without
charge or charged with a different offence.
At which point could this happen. Could the police knock on his door before
the new bail date and arrest and charge him before the new bail date? Is
that likely to happen?
Adam
Steve Firth
> No one is going to die.
Are you a medical practitioner? If not it seems a bit rash to make
declarations over the outcome of an assault. One punch can kill, and
death is not always instant, nor does even the best medical attention
guarantee that the person assaulted will not suffer a relapse and die.
There's a local case (Hampshire) where a pensioner was assaulted,
treated, appeared to be recovering but died seven months after the
assault. The assailant was then charged with murder. I've no idea of the
outcome because I lost track of the case in the hit-and-miss local news
reporting. However I wouldn't be so sanguine about the consequences of
any assault, no matter how trivial it may appear to the assailant.
ARWadsworth
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1iyoi34.1hwvdte142loghN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
I never mentioned that he punched anyone.
Adam
Richard Miller
ARWadsworth <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:FtKey4D0...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <S9DHl.17538$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ARWadsworth
>> <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>I suspect that it will take a long time for anything to happen due to the
>>>number of people involved plus witnesses statements.
>>
>> Quite possible.
>>
>>> I have also discovered it is section 18 that he was arrested for and if
>>> he is charged with that then it will be Crown Court.
>>
>> Section 18 - GBH with intent - is one of the most serious offences there
>> is. If the victim were to die of their injuries, this would be a murder
>> charge. Even if the victim does not die, the crime carries a possible life
>> sentence. So be under no illusion as to just how serious this is.
>> --
>> Richard Miller
>
>No one is going to die. We can do nothing but wait now. We do understand how
>serious the offence is.
>
>Another question.
>
>At some point (as I see it) he will be charged, allowed to go free without
>charge or charged with a different offence.
Correct.
>
>At which point could this happen. Could the police knock on his door before
>the new bail date and arrest and charge him before the new bail date? Is
>that likely to happen?
No, they cannot do that. He is required to return on his bail date. He
can only be arrested for different incidents, not for the same one; or
if he breaches any bail conditions.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
I never said that he did. I simply point out that you're not a medical
practitioner and even a medical practitioner would have a hard time
making a statement that GBH with intent did not post a threat, either
immediate or delayed, of fatal consequences.
Percy Picacity
news:IsmIl.18810$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com:
He didn't say you did: name any modality of gbh that isn't
signicantly likely to lead to death. I don't think you can. That's
one reason why causing gbh is a very serious crime.
--
Percy Picacity
ARWadsworth
Thank you Richard for giving your time to answer my questions. I do believe
that I will not need ask to ask any more questions until his bail date as
nothing will happen until then.
Cheers
Adam
ARWadsworth
You asked if I was a medical practitioner. You did NOT point out that I was
not a medical practitioner. A big difference.
Which bit of "no one is going to die" do you not believe? I suppose that I
should have said "no one is going to die because of what my apprentice has
done" would be more correct.
A half reported case in a local rag involving a pensioner dying seven months
after the assault is not relevant in my apprentices arrest.
Adam
Don Aitken
He cannot be arrested on the same charge, but he can be arrested in
connection with the same incident if they wish to bring a further
charge - not necessarily a more serious one. Whether he got bail for
that would be a separate decision, depending on the facts relevant to
that charge.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Steve Firth
> Which bit of "no one is going to die" do you not believe?
I don't believe that you are ualified to make that statement.
> I suppose that I should have said "no one is going to die because of what
> my apprentice has done" would be more correct.
I suggest you should have said that it seems unlikely that anyone will
die. Since you're not qualified to determine the outcome, or, if you
have access to a sound medical opinion you could have quoted that.
In another GBH case of which I'm aware, a young man with very good
features, good teeth, and a good future ahead of him had his future
turned into something else by an assailant who kicked in all his teeth,
jumped on the victim's head so violently that the man's face was
squashed out of shape and left him with brain damage. He didn't die and
he wasn't in immediate danger of dying after the assault. That doesn't
mean that the assault wasn't serious enough to see the individual
concerned locked up for several years. I do know all of the history of
that case since the victim and I worked together. So I'm less than
impressed by an absence of punching or an absence of death as
mitigation.
Richard Miller
<don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:10:11 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <Y29Il.18497$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>ARWadsworth <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>charge or charged with a different offence.
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>>
>>>At which point could this happen. Could the police knock on his door before
>>>the new bail date and arrest and charge him before the new bail date? Is
>>>that likely to happen?
>>
>>No, they cannot do that. He is required to return on his bail date. He
>>can only be arrested for different incidents, not for the same one; or
>>if he breaches any bail conditions.
>
>He cannot be arrested on the same charge, but he can be arrested in
>connection with the same incident if they wish to bring a further
>charge - not necessarily a more serious one. Whether he got bail for
>that would be a separate decision, depending on the facts relevant to
>that charge.
>
Are you sure about that? Is it in PACE somewhere?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>"ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>news:IsmIl.18810$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>
>He didn't say you did: name any modality of gbh that isn't
>signicantly likely to lead to death. I don't think you can. That's
>one reason why causing gbh is a very serious crime.
>
Actually, I don't agree with that. If you break someone's leg, that is
gbh, but I don't think it is "significantly likely" to lead to death. It
could do, and with the necessary intent the crime would be murder if it
did, but usually the victim will recover.
--
Richard Miller
Chris R
Steve Firth opined:
>>>> No one is going to die.
>>>
>>> Are you a medical practitioner? If not it seems a bit rash to make
>>> declarations over the outcome of an assault. One punch can kill, and
>>> death is not always instant, nor does even the best medical
>>> attention guarantee that the person assaulted will not suffer a
>>> relapse and die.
>>>
>>> There's a local case (Hampshire) where a pensioner was assaulted,
>>> treated, appeared to be recovering but died seven months after the
>>> assault. The assailant was then charged with murder. I've no idea
>>> of the outcome because I lost track of the case in the hit-and-miss
>>> local news reporting. However I wouldn't be so sanguine about the
>>> consequences of any assault, no matter how trivial it may appear to
>>> the assailant.
>>>
>>
>> I never mentioned that he punched anyone.
>
> I never said that he did. I simply point out that you're not a medical
> practitioner and even a medical practitioner would have a hard time
> making a statement that GBH with intent did not post a threat, either
> immediate or delayed, of fatal consequences.
Steve, I think you are being unduly aggressive towards the OP, who has asked
a question in good faith. In this group we can only offer help based on the
facts as described to us; if the OP says the victim is not going to die,
there is no reason to attack him for it - just accept it as the premise we
are working on.
Chris R
Steve Firth
> If you break someone's leg, that is gbh, but I don't think it is
> "significantly likely" to lead to death.
You may well think that, but you're wrong. Any breakage of a bome a
large as those in the leg carries a statistically significant chance of
fatal conseqences. The fact that "usually" the victim will recover does
not mean that the victime will always recover nor that the victim will
"usually" be left free of lifetime consequences.
Deep vein thhrombosis and subsequent pulmonary embolism are an
ever-present risk with a broken leg and more so because DVT is most
usually symptomless or has very mild symptoms. Other complications
include gangrene and septicaemia, both carrying a signficant risk of
fatality.
Complacency about the danger of DVT is common amongst the medical
professsion, so expecting lawyers/laymen to be aware of the potential
life-threatening consequences is asking too much, I suppose. However
complacently declaring that significant injury may be done without a
significant risk of lethal consequences is, IMO, one step too far.
Richard Miller
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you break someone's leg, that is gbh, but I don't think it is
>> "significantly likely" to lead to death.
>
>You may well think that, but you're wrong.
You don't seem to think so given what you say below.
>Any breakage of a bome a
>large as those in the leg carries a statistically significant chance of
>fatal conseqences. The fact that "usually" the victim will recover does
>not mean that the victime will always recover nor that the victim will
>"usually" be left free of lifetime consequences.
Which bit of that contradicts in the slightest my statement that a
broken leg is not "significantly likely" to lead to death? The whole
point of the bit of my post you have challenged was that there are
various circumstances which in a small minority of cases could lead to
death; but it is that - a small minority.
>
>Deep vein thhrombosis and subsequent pulmonary embolism are an
>ever-present risk with a broken leg and more so because DVT is most
>usually symptomless or has very mild symptoms. Other complications
>include gangrene and septicaemia, both carrying a signficant risk of
>fatality.
>
>Complacency about the danger of DVT is common amongst the medical
>professsion, so expecting lawyers/laymen to be aware of the potential
>life-threatening consequences is asking too much, I suppose. However
>complacently declaring that significant injury may be done without a
>significant risk of lethal consequences is, IMO, one step too far.
>
And that is why if you intend to break someone's leg, and they die from
such a complication, the correct charge is murder.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
> if the OP says the victim is not going to die,
> there is no reason to attack him for it
If I were attacking him, I would be contrite, since I am not but being
pourely factual, I am not contrite, nor do I see any reason to be so.
Steve Firth
> In message <1iyq8lc.d1qg0i9nqk34N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If you break someone's leg, that is gbh, but I don't think it is
> >> "significantly likely" to lead to death.
> >
> >You may well think that, but you're wrong.
>
> You don't seem to think so given what you say below.
No, it's simply that you seem to have misunderstood what I have said
below. And given what you say below you seem to have recognised that
fatality *is* a significant consequence of assault severe enough to
cause broken bones. If it were an insignifcant event then there would
clearly be no need to define an assault with intent to cause GBH
resulting in death as murder, would there?
[snip]
> Which bit of that contradicts in the slightest my statement that a
> broken leg is not "significantly likely" to lead to death? The whole
> point of the bit of my post you have challenged was that there are
> various circumstances which in a small minority of cases could lead to
> death; but it is that - a small minority.
I think you fail to understand the meaning of the term "significant".
You seem to be using it to mean "a majority", whereas I am using it in
the correct sense of "statistically significant" i.e. an effect which is
quantifiable and occurs with a probability which is mathematically
distinct from a random event.
[snip]
> >However complacently declaring that significant injury may be done
> >without a significant risk of lethal consequences is, IMO, one step too
> >far.
>
> And that is why if you intend to break someone's leg, and they die from
> such a complication, the correct charge is murder.
See above.
Percy Picacity
Death from thrombosis is an uncommon but eminently foreseeable cause
of death after a broken leg. There are two or three other possible
fatal complications that occur regularly if rarely.
--
Percy Picacity
ARWadsworth
If your stories ever have any relevance to my apprentices case I will let
you know.
Adam
Mr X
or any other possible way to die froma broken bone.
Steve Firth
> If your stories ever have any relevance to my apprentices case I will let
> you know.
Many thanks, I shall enjoy reading your response.
Steve Walker
Remember also that admission to any sexual offence incurs a substantial
civil penalty - registration on SOR, lifelong blacklisting from a large
sector of the employment market, stigma within family & community etc.
the Omrud
> Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:WV5aMISm...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>> that is gbh, but I don't think it is "significantly likely" to
>> lead to death. It could do, and with the necessary intent the
>> crime would be murder if it did, but usually the victim will
>> recover.
>
> Death from thrombosis is an uncommon but eminently foreseeable cause
> of death after a broken leg. There are two or three other possible
> fatal complications that occur regularly if rarely.
What if the perpetrator had no understanding that a broken leg could
result in fatal complications? I'd bet that the vast majority of the
public would not. Is it then not possible to prove a charge of murder?
--
David
Chris R
Steve Firth opined:
The tone of your posts - demanding to know whether the OP was a medical
practitioner and shouting down his response - was at best unfriendly, and at
worst extremely rude. That is not the style of this group.
Chris R
Steve Firth
> You forgot a fat emobolus from the broken bone, wound or even bone infection
> or any other possible way to die froma broken bone.
I did, or rather given the hostility which seems to have greeted
unemotional comment on this issue, I really couldn't be bothered to go
into detail. I'm bemused that GBH seems to be treated as if it were just
a friendly disagreement between individuals with the view that serious
consequences are so unlikely that they should not be considered.
Richard Miller
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1iyq8lc.d1qg0i9nqk34N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>> >Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you break someone's leg, that is gbh, but I don't think it is
>> >> "significantly likely" to lead to death.
>> >
>> >You may well think that, but you're wrong.
>>
>> You don't seem to think so given what you say below.
>
>No, it's simply that you seem to have misunderstood what I have said
>below. And given what you say below you seem to have recognised that
>fatality *is* a significant consequence of assault severe enough to
>cause broken bones. If it were an insignifcant event then there would
>clearly be no need to define an assault with intent to cause GBH
>resulting in death as murder, would there?
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
My own words are above. I do not think it is "significantly likely" that
a broken leg will lead to death. I never said anywhere that it is not a
possible consequence, or that it isn't significant when it happens. And
nothing you have said contradicts what I actually wrote, regardless of
what you think you read.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Which bit of that contradicts in the slightest my statement that a
>> broken leg is not "significantly likely" to lead to death? The whole
>> point of the bit of my post you have challenged was that there are
>> various circumstances which in a small minority of cases could lead to
>> death; but it is that - a small minority.
>
>I think you fail to understand the meaning of the term "significant".
>You seem to be using it to mean "a majority", whereas I am using it in
>the correct sense of "statistically significant" i.e. an effect which is
>quantifiable and occurs with a probability which is mathematically
>distinct from a random event.
The phrase I used was significantly likely, not significant. You are
therefore arguing against something I did not say.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
> In news:1iyqc22.1xs10jdz2h3bnN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk,
> Steve Firth opined:
> > Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> if the OP says the victim is not going to die,
> >> there is no reason to attack him for it
> >
> > If I were attacking him, I would be contrite, since I am not but being
> > pourely factual, I am not contrite, nor do I see any reason to be so.
>
> The tone of your posts - demanding to know whether the OP was a medical
> practitioner
I did not demand anything, I asked if he was a medical practitioner,
since he appeared to be offering medical opinion.
> and shouting down his response
I did not "shout down" his repsonse, to do so would be impossible since
one cannot shout in print and the tone and the manner of muy response
was both reserved and respectful.
>- was at best unfriendly, and at
> worst extremely rude.
Your opinion appears to be based on something other than the facts.
> That is not the style of this group.
My replies were, IMO, fully within the spirit and the letter of the
group. IMO your attacks upon me are neither.
Steve Firth
> What if the perpetrator had no understanding that a broken leg could
> result in fatal complications? I'd bet that the vast majority of the
> public would not. Is it then not possible to prove a charge of murder?
It may well be impossible to prove a charge of murder, however wounding
with intent to do GBH under S18 of the OAPA can still warrant a life
sentence. If the apprentice can get the "intent" dropped and turn it
into ABH under S20 then a lesser penalty applies.
If the injury ammounts to no more than:
Grazes, Scratches, Abrasions, Minor bruising, Swellings, Reddening of
the skin, Superficial cuts, A black eye;
and it was an impulsive action and a single blow then the assailant
might stand a chance of being tried for common assault (s39 CJA).
However any injury more serious than that or a sustained attack and it's
ABH/GBH. Multiple kickings, the involvement of others, the location
(especially outside a pub or night club) can all aggravate the offence.
Steve Firth
[snip]
> Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I have done no such thing.
And you are simply attempting to personalise a discussion into an
argument which I will not take further part in.
Don Aitken
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t7d4v4hss3as8kt5b...@4ax.com>, Don Aitken
><don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
>>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:10:11 +0100, Richard Miller
>><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <Y29Il.18497$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>>ARWadsworth <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>At some point (as I see it) he will be charged, allowed to go free without
>>>>charge or charged with a different offence.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>At which point could this happen. Could the police knock on his door before
>>>>the new bail date and arrest and charge him before the new bail date? Is
>>>>that likely to happen?
>>>
>>>No, they cannot do that. He is required to return on his bail date. He
>>>can only be arrested for different incidents, not for the same one; or
>>>if he breaches any bail conditions.
>>
>>He cannot be arrested on the same charge, but he can be arrested in
>>connection with the same incident if they wish to bring a further
>>charge - not necessarily a more serious one. Whether he got bail for
>>that would be a separate decision, depending on the facts relevant to
>>that charge.
>>
>
>Are you sure about that? Is it in PACE somewhere?
I don't know, but I based my statement on the fact that it is standard
practice for a person to be arrested for the relevant offence before
an additional charge is put to them; this is so even if they are
already in custody. I think this was true even before PACE.
Don Aitken
Circumstances which justify a conviction for GBH with intent will
equally justify one for murder if the victim dies, irrespective of the
offender's state of mind. Forseeability don't enter into it; all that
is necessary is that the injury was *a* cause (not necessarily the
only or the main cause) of the death. The old common-law rule which
requires the death to occur within a year and a day of the injury
still applies, though.
Percy Picacity
news:wFHIl.19240$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com:
The OP was talking about assault with intent to cause GBH. Any
adult of normal intellect who claims that he did not know that
hitting someone hard enough to break a leg (for instance) is taking
a significant risk of killing them has a serious personality
disorder. I distinguish this from assault not envisaged to cause
more than actual bodily harm (as might happen during a demonstration
for instance), which inadvertently causes GBH or death.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
news:1iyqq3w.10qekklju80tbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk:
Especially now the law has been changed so that death, as consequence
of the injury, occurring many years later can be charged as murder, and
the perpetrator sent back to prison for a new term. Previously of
course only death within a year (366 days?) could be so charged.
--
Percy Picacity
Janitor of Lunacy
Richard Miller
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
Apology accepted.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
It would certainly be the case if someone was arrested for one offence
and the search threw up evidence of another; it might also be true if
someone was arrested for gbh, and the person subsequently died so that
it became murder. But I don't see how it could be legitimate to do it
just because on taking advice on charge while the person was on bail, a
different charge was chosen.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
<sigh> You cannot accept something that was not offered and it was not
offered because it was not necessary.
Richard Miller
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1iyqtsi.wgsa2ohkwzt7N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>> >Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> Please stop putting words in my mouth.
>> >
>> >I have done no such thing.
>> >
>> >And you are simply attempting to personalise a discussion into an
>> >argument which I will not take further part in.
>> >
>>
>> Apology accepted.
>
><sigh> You cannot accept something that was not offered and it was not
>offered because it was not necessary.
>
My original post said,
"If you break someone's leg, that is gbh, but I don't think it is
"significantly likely" to lead to death. It could do, and with the
necessary intent the crime would be murder if it did, but usually the
victim will recover."
Why do you argue that death is a significantly likely outcome following
a broken leg? Do you dispute that usually the victim of a broken leg
will recover rather than die? What proportion of those who suffer from a
broken leg do you think die as a result of the injury?
Because it is the semantics of that question that forms the entire
substance of the difference between us. I read the phrase "significantly
likely" as meaning it is, if not more likely than not, then at least a
30-40% probability. You seem, from what I understand, to be interpreting
a chance of around 5% or less as "significantly likely".
It is on that different interpretation that you opened this part of the
thread with the confrontational and personalised statement "You are
wrong". You are free to have a different interpretation, but to claim
some objective rightness for yours was unjustified.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
> My original post said,
I refer you to the answer given previously about not being drawn into
personalised argument. You were IMO using the term "significantly"
incorrectly, I was using it correctly.
ARWadsworth
If anyone dies in relation to the arrest mentioned in my posts I shall let
you know ASAP and give a full apology:-)
Fingers crossed on both sides of the fence.
Adam
Richard Miller
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
On the moderated group, it is inappropriate to accuse a person of being
"wrong" merely on the back of different interpretations of a phrase
where there is no definitive "right" answer.
As this is the moderated group, I will refrain from saying anything
further.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Firth
> On the moderated group, it is inappropriate to accuse a person of being
> "wrong"
I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that. Pointing out that someone is
wrong is perfectly permissible. It's when someone veers into personal
attach that they are in the wrong a far as moderation goes.
Patrick Gosling
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On the moderated group, it is inappropriate to accuse a person of being
>"wrong" merely on the back of different interpretations of a phrase
>where there is no definitive "right" answer.
It might, however, be reasonable to ask those concerned to quantify
what mortality percentage they might regard as "significantly likely"
in this kind of context.
In your original comment, you conveyed (to me at any rate) the impression
that you were in agreement with the sentiment that many if not most
forms of GBH _were_ "significantly likely" to cause death. It would
be interesting to list the kinds of assaults you felt did fit into this
category.
I think there's a moderate likelihood that the mortality rate consequent
on fractured lower limbs will be rather higher than you expect (although
this will be significantly skewed by the much higher mortality rate in
elderly patients; but in the debate so far there has been no suggestion
that assaults on the elderly should be special-cased out of the
discussion).
I also think that there's a significant likelihood that the mortality
rates consequent on at least some of the other kinds of assaults that
you intuitively think _are_ "significantly likely" to cause death,
will not be statistically significantly different from that consequent
on fractured lower limbs.
But if you can answer the questions above, we can go and inspect the
medical statistical data, and return to having a discussion rather
than an argument 8-)
-patrick.
Richard Miller
<jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes
>In article <1dHSu3+Y...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On the moderated group, it is inappropriate to accuse a person of being
>>"wrong" merely on the back of different interpretations of a phrase
>>where there is no definitive "right" answer.
>
>It might, however, be reasonable to ask those concerned to quantify
>what mortality percentage they might regard as "significantly likely"
>in this kind of context.
>
>In your original comment, you conveyed (to me at any rate) the impression
>that you were in agreement with the sentiment that many if not most
>forms of GBH _were_ "significantly likely" to cause death.
On the contrary, it was my challenge to that assertion that led to the
dispute that followed.
Percy Picacity said:
"Name any modality of gbh that isn't significantly likely to lead to
death. I don't think you can. That's one reason why causing gbh is a
very serious crime."
I replied:
"Actually, I don't agree with that. If you break someone's leg, that is
gbh, but I don't think it is "significantly likely" to lead to death. It
could do, and with the necessary intent the crime would be murder if it
did, but usually the victim will recover."
>It would
>be interesting to list the kinds of assaults you felt did fit into this
>category.
The issue with gbh is that many serious injuries are not generally
life-threatening. Clean breaks of limbs are not generally
life-threatening unless there is some underlying problem or the victim
is elderly. Complications can set in, but that would be fairly
exceptional. A punch to the jaw can cause gbh, but it is usually only
when the victim falls and cracks their skull that they die, leading to a
murder charge.
On the other hand, beating your victim repeatedly with an iron bar would
in my view be "significantly likely" to lead to death, as would shooting
them in the knees (or anywhere else for that matter), or, as happened to
Damilola Taylor, stabbing them in the leg and cutting a major vein.
>
>I think there's a moderate likelihood that the mortality rate consequent
>on fractured lower limbs will be rather higher than you expect (although
>this will be significantly skewed by the much higher mortality rate in
>elderly patients; but in the debate so far there has been no suggestion
>that assaults on the elderly should be special-cased out of the
>discussion).
I don't have any clear idea in mind. I know that with elderly people, a
broken leg can often be the trigger that leads to other health problems
and death soon afterwards. It happened to my grandmother many years ago.
But for younger people with no other underlying health issues, I would
be surprised if in as many as one in 500 cases, a simple broken limb
with no other significant injuries led to death.
One example where it did happen, although in this case there were
multiple fractures, was the racing driver Ronnie Peterson. From
Wikipedia:
"At the hospital, Peterson's X-rays showed he had 7 fractures in one leg
and 3 in the other. After discussion with Ronnie himself, the surgeons
decided to operate to stabilize the bones. Unfortunately, during the
night, bone marrow went into Peterson's bloodstream through the
fractures, forming fat globules on his major organs including lungs,
liver, and brain. By morning he was in full renal failure and was
declared dead a few hours later. The cause of death was given as fat
embolism."
>
>I also think that there's a significant likelihood that the mortality
>rates consequent on at least some of the other kinds of assaults that
>you intuitively think _are_ "significantly likely" to cause death,
>will not be statistically significantly different from that consequent
>on fractured lower limbs.
>
>But if you can answer the questions above, we can go and inspect the
>medical statistical data, and return to having a discussion rather
>than an argument 8-)
>
Over to you...
--
Richard Miller
angel...@gmail.com
Janitor of Lunacy
<angel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfd1789e-8ca2-47c1...@googlegroups.com...
> happened and have nowhere to live who can I contact for help.
taken as an admission of guilt.
2. It's unusual that you were given bail without a condition of residence
if, as you say, you have been arrested in relation to an incident at your
home address.
3. Have you any family or friends who will put you up? I doubt you'd be
entitled to any assistance from Social Services in this situation.
4. How about the person whose internet connection you used to post your
message, unless it was from an internet cafe, and I doubt libraries are open
at this time of night?
Roland Perry
2014, Janitor of Lunacy <zo...@zonk.com> remarked:'
>> I've been bailed out but can't go back to my home as it is where the crime
>> happened and have nowhere to live who can I contact for help.
>
>1. "where the crime happened" isn't a useful thing to say as it might be
>taken as an admission of guilt.
>2. It's unusual that you were given bail without
>a condition of residence if, as you say, you have been arrested in
>relation to an incident at your home address.
Roland Perry
R. Mark Clayton
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PAU6CISF...@perry.co.uk...
> 2014, Janitor of Lunacy <zo...@zonk.com> remarked:'
>
>>> I've been bailed out but can't go back to my home as it is where the
>>> crime
>>> happened and have nowhere to live who can I contact for help.
>>
>>1. "where the crime happened" isn't a useful thing to say as it might be
>>taken as an admission of guilt.
>
> Where the crime happened is by now presumably an accepted fact.
domstic violence, where in fact no assault occurred at all or the OP was
merely defending him/herself.
Zapp Brannigan
> happened and have nowhere to live who can I contact for help.
your pre-charge bail, or that you do not wish to return there?
If the first, then you need a criminal defence solicitor. You are entitled
to this without charge, when at the Police station or court. They will
advise you on challenging the Police Bail condition. If you would be safe
and welcome at your normal home, then you have the option of ignoring the
pre-charge bail condition (it is largely toothless, usually all that they
can do is arrest you and then release you again). As JOL says above, it is
strange that you have been bailed without an address. Perhaps there is
more to this than meets the eye.
If the second, then you can try your council's housing dept or Shelter for
emergency advice.
Paul Cummins
wrote:
> As JOL says above, it is
> strange that you have been bailed without an address. Perhaps
> there is more to this than meets the eye.
was unconditional.
Unless there is a very good reason, section 47(3) (police) bail MUST be
unconditional.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
barke...@gmail.com
GB
> Alleged offence abh on bail until next month ...is that when I will be charged
>
to progress. Possibly, by next month, they will have completed their
investigation?
Two questions:
Have you been interviewed?
What did your brief think would happen next?
monstersf...@gmail.com
Wayne.
The Todal
> I am currently on bail pending further investigation, on a fairly serious charge. I would class myself as a relatively intelligent person, and understand that breaching police bail will have its consequences. I work full time, and I am supposed to answer my bail at 6pm. I will be unable to attend until around 7pm, wholly due to the time it takes to travel there from work. I'm not in a position to be able to get away from work early, so I was just wondering what will happen when I arrive around an hour late. For once, Google hasn't helped me on this. On a side note, I will be calling them to let them know first. Whether or not this will help, I have no idea. Any help on that would be appreciated.
>
> Wayne.
>
them to turn up late. If not, then you have to get there by the
specified time or you may get arrested.
Laurence Taylor
hours then? In any case, you should telephone them during the day to let
them know. If possible, speak to the investigating officer rather than just
a telephonist.
You should also inform your solicitor.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
war...@hotmail.co.uk
> My apprentice got into a brawl on a night out a couple of weeks ago. 13
> people were involved.
>
> He was arrested for GBH with intent and released on bail.
>
> As far as I can tell he has been released on bail for further enquiries to
> be made and not actually been charged.
>
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1. When he goes back to the police station (he attends tommorrow) what
> happens. If he is charged will he be locked up before attending a
> magistrates court to try to get bail or will he be rebailed to attend a
> court and then remanded. Remand may be an option on this one due to peoples
> injuries.
>
> 2. Solicitors fees. I do believe duty solicitors are free until you are
> charged (I really do not know which is why I am asking here). If he is
> charged does he then have to pay for his solicitor for further work done by
> them. If so, at that point can he choose a new solicitor to take his case on
> (ie one with a better reputation for getting people off than the duty
> solicitor who attended)
>
> Adam
How old is he? If he's a youth (under 18) it will make a large difference to the outcome.
Jonathan
Sara Merriman
stellas...@gmail.com
GB
> What happens when your on police bail with out charge turn up to police station dated but police officer in charge never came and no bail conditions given
>
A 28-day limit on police bail has come into force in England and Wales.
The move follows criticism of people being kept on police bail for
months or years without charge in investigations such as Operation
Yewtree - into historical sexual abuse - and others.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the reforms brought "much-needed
safeguards" over police bail.
The Police Federation of England and Wales said the limit will mean a
"massive change" in custody culture.
Police bail can still be extended for up to three months more in complex
cases with the authorisation of a senior police officer, or even further
by applying to a magistrate.
'End to injustice'
Police use pre-charge bail when they have questioned a suspect, but need
time to continue their investigations before determining whether to
charge them.
A suspect is released from custody, sometimes with conditions attached,
and told to report back to a police station at a later date.
Previously, there was no legal limit on how long someone could be bailed
for.
The 28-day limit is one of several measures taking effect on Monday
through the Policing and Crime Act 2017.
The limit is designed to reduce the amount of time people spend on
police bail and strengthen safeguards for suspects.
In a number of high-profile cases suspects were kept waiting for long
periods of time before being told whether they would be charged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39455939
Robin
> On 17/07/2017 19:36, stellas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What happens when your on police bail with out charge turn up to
>> police station dated but police officer in charge never came and no
>> bail conditions given
>>
>
> Does this apply to you?
>
> A 28-day limit on police bail has come into force in England and Wales.
But please note that the limit of 28 days is not absolute. It can be
extended to three months on the authority of a superintendent. It can
be extended beyond that by magistrates.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Judith
>What happens when your on police bail with out charge turn up to police station dated but police officer in charge never came and no bail conditions given
investigation (rather than bailed) and there were just no conditions stated?
Sara Merriman
police station on a particular date?
Judith
specified. The onus is on the police to contact the individual if/when they
want to.
In these circumstances, I don't know if the police contact them when they are
satisfied that they will not need to interview the person again.
ie I don't know if the RUI is hanging over you - or whether the police tell you
the investigation is complete and you can stop worrying about it.
R. Mark Clayton
Police bail pending inquiries to return to the nick is usual. This happened to me once, but fortunately the chap of similar appearance they were actually looking for handed himself in. I got letter telling me not to come.
Judith
"released under investigation" - where you don't have to go back until asked
to - rather than being bailed to go back at specified date - where it was a
*must* that you returned at that date and time.