Hello and welcome to this 20 minute bite sized webinar. On behalf of data, all my name is calling Beaumont. This particular webinar is all about assaults, including the new piece of legislation that we've had. We're going to be looking at 12 bullet points, so let's go to the first slide points. One in two assaults on Emergency Workers Offenses Act 2000 and 18 came into force on the 12 of November 2000 and 18. What have they done? Well common is sold in battery is now in either way offence with a maximum of 12 months imprisonment on conviction on indictment. It's committed against an emergency worker police officers, fireman being absolute classics. No, no, you guidelines. I did look on the Magistrates Court website to see whether or not there any new guidelines concerning this new offense on their armed. So if you have an assault police matter, we're still referring to the old guidelines, although I doubt that a so please will actually be the charge. Now it's likely to be a salt on an emergency worker 0.2. The above a soul is still caught by the act. If the person was carrying out functions as any emergency worker at a time when that person was not at work. Oh, I suppose that's a nod to the bank that police offices, I never really off duty are days. So if they're doing things that would have Bean done as part of their work, then the fact that it's a Sunday off new and their off duty easy where it isn't specifically charged as this new offense of the act says, of course, and it shall be treated as an aggravating factor. But I think we probably knew that anyway. So if it's a Section 20 wounding or a Section 47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm if it committed against the emergency worker, that's going to be an aggravating factor, meaning of emergency worker. When there's a full list of people in Section three, I've mentioned constables already. I've mentioned Fireman and you'll also find in their NHS people. Um, also those people who escort prisoners are to and from institutions. There are various other people as well. No doubt your check Section three. If you think you've got an old charge 0.3. Ignore the reference to 12 months in the magistrate court for this events. That's what the act says. It's still only six months and will continue to be six months unless and until section 154 1 that the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three he's brought into force. That section increased the sentencing powers of Magistrates on one either way, events from six months to 12 months. But it's never Bean brought into force. The act. The new act is no retrospective at some examples off people who are protected under the act. Any tests. Prison custody officers, prison officers, constable fire and rescue services. Okay with that, Sam, that's enough of the act. Safe to, say, Bullet Point number four There coming. A silken battery can now be charged outside of the six month peak because, of course, it's no longer subject to the limitations concerned in Section 127 at the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 that of calls prevents proceedings being commenced more than six months after the commission date of the events for summary only offenses. But of course, this is no longer a summary of the defense. It's triable either way, with 12 months on indictment there are no time limits for either way offences. There are no time limits for purely indicted offenses. Written chargers and requisitions where we've had a case of long last James William Brown on the DPP 2000 and 19 the high court giving us some guidance as to the meaning of the term issue. Yes, when has the written charging requisition being issue? The high Court judge saying in that particular case that the rigid johrj effectively was issued when it'd be produced in a format with a lot of the relevant details ready. For Scindia, the fact that the requisition was posted outside of the six month period is irrelevant. What's relevant was it written charge had being produced on put together in a format ready for sending within six months. That's how it has to be. A. It's a summary only events see also Rule seven of the Criminal procedurals 2015 is amended, a very sure rule in terms off commencing proceedings in a magistrate. What answer? Many questions you may have in relation to informations and summonses. Rijn charges on requisitions or single justice notice procedure about James. William Brown was a single justice notice procedure. The actual notice had been sent out more than six months after the event. So what, said the High Court judge. That didn't matter. What mattered was that the written charge had Bean put together in a correct format, ready for sending within six months point fine valiantly. You cannot amend a Section 47 charge to a Section 39 charge unless the Section 47 event was charged within the six month. That's a case of Dugal of the CPS. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good decision for the defense. I think of occasion. Tonight's might be rather happy that the crowd wanted down Ray need a section 47 to a Section 39. Well, apparently you can't do it unless the Section 47 was charged within the six month in and in these days of times being really released under investigation, it may well be that a good deal more than six months is passed before the charge is put together in a format that ready for sent me now and in those circumstances at cold, it could never be reduced to a 17 0.67 events section 76 fine A of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act on the case of Colleen's on the case of Cheesman. Interesting cases we know, don't we? 76 Fine. A. Says effectively that if you're a householder confronted buying intruder, you can use disproportionate force it in all the circumstances. The usage of disproportionate force is reasonable. You still can't use grossly disproportionate force. If you use grossly disproportionate force on an intruder. A burglar, you are likely to be charged, and you may well find yourself convicted. However, if you do go slightly over the top and used disproportionate force than you are to be, given the benefit of the doubt bearing in mind you were in your own home at the time, confronted by an intruder. Gosh, I think it's only fair. That seems to me to be very good. Common sense, of course, if you're in the street, this proportion of force is moving 0.7 and eight. Section 47 of the offenses against the Person Act 18 61 could be committed intentionally or recklessly. Watch out with that. There's many a client of the peace station in might say. Well, I didn't in came to do him harm. Well, you don't have to intend the Section 47. You have to be wrecked class. What is the state of mind of a reckless person when I tell you it's the state of mind of a person who appreciate that they will be some risk in what he or she is doing but nevertheless goes on to take that risk. And it is a subjective test that, rather than objective the events under Section 18 of the act he's wounding within 10 to do some grievous bodily harm. So for a Section 18 charge made out, the prosecution have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm. There's no aspect of recklessness In Section 18 Section 20 of the act is worldly or inflicting grievous bodily harm. But without him came, it's the same type of harm. Grievous bodily harm is really serious bodily harm, but because there's no intent, his charges a Section 20 while than a Section 18 Section 18 is, you know, carries life imprisonment section 25 years on indictment. The words within Section 20 are unlawfully and maliciously what is maliciously me bullet 0.8 maliciously is now settled to me intentionally, all recklessly. Everything will depend upon the backs. It's quite clear from what he did that he intended grievous bodily harm. Like, for example, he drove a car someone he's probably going to be charged with Section 18. If it's a little gray up, that, of course, the prosecution, like, want to charge Section 20? Why? Well, because it's easier to establish the malicious aspect of a crime. Which report is merely acting recklessly rather than intentionally wishing to commit the effects. As I say, everything depends on the backs. And, of course, it is subject to. He accused four Soul that some bodily harm might occur but nevertheless went on to take that risk sanction Printed 9 10 11 and 12. Let's have a look at nine common assault and battery. Meant to element is an intention or recklessness, causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful contact. There must be a threat of physical contact, all actual physical contact. Do please bear in mind that you don't need any physical contact for an assault. Data pools is the battery part. There must be a threat, a physical contact if there is actual physical from day. That is more in the nature of the battery, and we sometimes refer to gently as assault and battery domestic assault one. There are a lot, of course, upon your time in the peace station to deal with domestic assaults. Much of the time statements might be his statements, but let's say there her statements, they're being called on body cam footage. Now. Can that body cam for just be played in cool? Well, yes, he can. If the court are prepared to accept it under the Rays. Just I exception to the rule against receiving hearsay evidence. It is hearsay evidence, of course, unless she's prepared to come to call to give live all testimony of the assault. But it maybe she's not willing to make a formal statement admissible in criminal proceedings, or she's made a statement. But she's too fearful to come to court to give live or testimony because she's worried about what might happen to her or what might happen to her Children should she come to court to testify. In those circumstances, the prosecution might make an application to proceed with the body cam footage, the statements that were made to the police opposites in her living room on were called on their body cam footage. Also her 999 Cool to the police. These are war hearsay statements. Why? Because 0.11 Section 11 thigh defines a hearsay statement as any statement other than that made by way off live or oral testimony when giving evidence in court. Now, what is raised just die when it was an old common law exception whereby hearsay statements could always be given in evidence in the proceedings. It is a statement made by a person so emotionally overpowered by the event that the possibility of a concoction or distortion could be disregarded so it might well be necessary to view the body cam footage to see whether under people's within the rays just die exception whereby those hearsay statements which he made in her living room could be received by way off live or a testament Goche. I will. For most of the time, the 999 call to the police is going to fall within the race. Just die principle because of the immediacy of the call to the police. Assuming, of course, the phone call is made immediately after the incident in survives the other statements of concern. Well, I suppose it pains what state she's in or he's in as and when the police arrive at the house. In the case of Barnaby, they were on the scene within six minutes. We have other case, nor in which the police were on the scene within two hours. I think these air time, baby, it's falling well within the race Guest time principle. Is there really need to serve the defense with the hearsay notice? This is hearsay. Evidence? No. Section 18 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three. Section 118 has done away with the need to serve it here. ST No, please. On the defense in ways guest A. So is it a grave crime in the youth called? Is there the possibility of a committal? The sentence? Well, it might be a great crime. It might be green was bodily harm with intent, In which case it might well be the subject of a committal sentence. It the magistrate consider that their sentencing powers are inadequate. They got two years to play with my way off detention in trading water. Oh, it might be that they're committing per sentence because this person, or to be centered, perhaps as a dangerous offender and only Crown Court judges consents dangerous offenders Do please be aware or shed your 15 and shake you 15 b. Have the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three. These shake use of called set out your specified violent offenses on your specified sexual offenses. You will clearly find many of Celts contained within. Check your 15 now do be careful, please, with Section 47 in the youth cold, particularly so if your client has pleaded guilty because Section 47 carries a maximum five years on indictment. If your client to speedy guilty that, of course, that requires the court to deduct one from the five years. If you deduct 1/3 from five years, you get to a centers under four years. Why is that relevant? I'll tell you, you cannot be sentenced as a dangerous offender as a youth unless the events Mary's a determinant sentence of at least four years. So I'm afraid the maths just don't work. If it's a guilty play to a B H, there should therefore be no committal for seconds. I suppose you're risk of the committee off the sentence where perhaps the client is convicted or pleads guilty to grievous bodily harm with intent. And exactly the same as I have said about a B H, of course, would apply to malicious wounding, which you gain carries five years, only nine. So there you are. And there you have it. We've come to the end of our 20 minutes. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. My hope. The information is helped. And I look forward to your company again on another date. A little bite sized webinar in the not too distant future. Thank you very much.
Webinar
Slides
Quiz 
2319 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews
