Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[thelawnet]

I suspect the barrister who mitigates will ask the judge to be wary of 'double counting' and to pass concurrent sentences.

The attempt GBH is the most serious - maximum five years - against the maximum of two years for dangerous driving.

There don't appear to be any sentencing guidelines for the attempted form of the offence, but there are for GBH.

Those suggest level two - lesser harm, but high culpability.

Starting point 18 months, range one to three years.

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...ssault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

Wrong offence.

There are two here:

"Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm" (s18)

or

"Inflicting grievous bodily harm" (s20)

It is not possible to attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm without intent.

So the offence is s18, not s20.

In this case there appears to be higher culpability, as she used a weapon or weapon equivalent, but not harm.

The range of sentencing for the offence is 3-16 years, and for this Category 2, it is 5-9 years with a starting point of 6 years.

So she SHOULD be facing AT LEAST five years, and as the minimum sentence for the offence is 3 years, there is no possibility of a suspended sentence (unless the judge decides there are grounds to overrule the entire sentencing guideline).

 

[andrew_s]

The cyclist wasn't badly hurt ("The male cyclist was taken to hospital with a small cut to his arm", according to a police statement the following day)
Does "Causing minor injury with intent to do grievous bodily harm" also count as s18?

 

[Pale Rider]

Wrong offence.

There are two here:

"Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm" (s18)

or

"Inflicting grievous bodily harm" (s20)

It is not possible to attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm without intent.

So the offence is s18, not s20.

In this case there appears to be higher culpability, as she used a weapon or weapon equivalent, but not harm.

The range of sentencing for the offence is 3-16 years, and for this Category 2, it is 5-9 years with a starting point of 6 years.

So she SHOULD be facing AT LEAST five years, and as the minimum sentence for the offence is 3 years, there is no possibility of a suspended sentence (unless the judge decides there are grounds to overrule the entire sentencing guideline).

The offence is attempted grievous bodily harm, or attempted sect 20, if you prefer.

It is the attempted form of the offence because the cyclist suffered minor injuries - there was no grievous bodily harm inflicted on him, so no one can be guilty of doing so, whether with intent or without it.

As I said, it comes down to the view of the lawyer who is formulating the indictment.

The CPS guidelines for prosecutors generally advise avoiding attempting sect 20, but concede it can be used in certain cases:

Quoting: "Because of the distinction between the definition of a wound and that of grievous bodily harm there is an argument for saying that it is possible to attempt a section 20 wounding - for example where an offender intends to cause an injury that would break the continuity of the whole of the outer skin but would not cause really serious bodily harm."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#b16

I couldn't readily see any sentencing guidelines for the attempted form of sect 20, so I suspect the court will do as I did and refer to the simple sect 20 guidelines.

Although her barrister will point out more times than enough that those guidelines don't strictly apply because his client didn't seriously injure anyone.

 

[slowmotion]

I'll eat my helmet if she gets a custodial sentence.

 

[slowmotion]

You are not that supple.

I had a sneaking suspicion that that was coming......
Oh Lord, I do keep digging...

 

[Paul Bonsor]

I had a sneaking suspicion that that was coming......
Oh Lord, I do keep digging...

Take a rib out, problem solved

 

[thelawnet]

The offence is attempted grievous bodily harm, or attempted sect 20, if you prefer.

It is the attempted form of the offence because the cyclist suffered minor injuries - there was no grievous bodily harm inflicted on him, so no one can be guilty of doing so, whether with intent or without it.

You what? The difference between s18 and s20 is intent to commit specifically grievous harm. The outcome is the same.Given that there was no actual harm, it follows that the offence is s18, or nothing, since you can only charge s20, if there was no intent to commit grievous harm.

 

[Pale Rider]

You what? The difference between s18 and s20 is intent to commit specifically grievous harm. The outcome is the same.Given that there was no actual harm, it follows that the offence is s18, or nothing, since you can only charge s20, if there was no intent to commit grievous harm.

In the case referred to, the charge and conviction is attempted section 20 - that's a simple matter of fact.

It has to be the attempted form because there was no serious injury to the cyclist.

The lawyer probably thought dangerous driving was not sufficient, because a cyclist was hit and slightly injured.

Most dangerous drives are property offences, the clown driver races the car around, smacks a bit of street furniture and then legs it.

There is a relatively new charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, but that's no good here because no serious injury was caused.

The attempted sect 20 in this case reflects the involvement of the cyclist.

Given the available charges, the lawyer has been quite smart to use attempted sect 20.

It would have been easy to go just for dangerous, so this is one of those rare occasions where the CPS deserves a pat on the back for trying to accurately reflect the criminality, not simply accepting a lesser conviction.

 

[Labradorofperception]

Apparently, she has previous for dangerous driving and driving under the influence.

and if she is 31, she must have one hell of a paper round.

It must be a custodial, if she was reckless as to having the kids in the car then she was reckless to the consequences.

 

[benb]

this is one of those rare occasions where the CPS deserves a pat on the back for trying to accurately reflect the criminality, not simply accepting a lesser conviction.

Makes a refreshing change

 

[thelawnet]

In the case referred to, the charge and conviction is attempted section 20 - that's a simple matter of fact.

Is it? Says who??

It has to be the attempted form because there was no serious injury to the cyclist.

Yes that's understood.

s18 ad s20 both represent identical harm.
The difference is INTENT.
In the case of s20, there is no intent to commit GRIEVOUS harm. Like if I punch you, and you suffer brain damage, the I can argue that I didn't intend to seriously harm you.
But if I stab you with a big knife, then its obvious that I INTENDED GRIEVOUS harm.

The attempted sect 20 in this case reflects the involvement of the cyclist.

Given the available charges, the lawyer has been quite smart to use attempted sect 20.

It's section 18
It's nonsensical to charge attempted s20, Because s20 means there was grievous harm, but the offender didn't intend to cause grievous harm.

 

[400bhp]

Stop fiddling while Rome burns.

Let's see what she gets.

 

[Pale Rider]

Is it? Says who??

It's section 18
It's nonsensical to charge attempted s20, Because s20 means there was grievous harm, but the offender didn't intend to cause grievous harm.

Says who? The press report - which is all we have - is clear.

"A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into a cyclist she had argued with."

You have said several times an attempt must include intent.

The law and the CPS guidelines to prosecutors generally agrees with you.

But, and it is a big but, the offence of attempted sect 20 does exist, and while rarely used, it has been used in this case.

If you still think it's wrong, all you can do is go to Kingston Crown Court for sentence and tell the judge and the two lawyers about the legal mistake they've made.

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4

 

[thelawnet]

Says who? The press report - which is all we have - is clear.

"A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into a cyclist she had argued with."

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4

Uh, you presume that the journalists know the first thing about the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or understand the meaning of 'with intent'.

The reporting reads ' attempted grievous bodily harm'

It does not say 'attempted grievous bodily harm under s20'.

'Attempted grievous bodily harm' could mean either s18 or s20, since both are offences of gbh, and the 'attempt' refers to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s1, which applies to all indictable offences.

This report suggests that she was charged with 'attempted grievous bodily harm with intent'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...hed-into-salon-in-road-rage-row-a3083701.html
As does this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-smashing-beauty-salon-fit-road-rage.html

Under the Criminal Attempts Act s4, the penalty for an attempt is the same as for a completed offence.

If you still think it's wrong, all you can do is go to Kingston Crown Court for sentence and tell the judge and the two lawyers about the legal mistake they've made.

Or you could just accept that journalists don't report things accurately, and trust the CPS when they say (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#b16)

"It is not possible to attempt to commit a section 20 GBH offence. An attempt to cause grievous bodily harm should be charged as an attempt section 18 because, as a matter of law if a suspect attempts to cause really serious harm he must necessarily intend to do so. Similarly if a suspect attempts to cause a serious wound of a kind that would clearly amount to grievous bodily harm the offence would be attempted section 18."

So again, she should be looking at around five years inside, with NO possibility of a suspended sentence, because the MINIMUM sentence for s18 is three years in prison, which cannot be suspended.

If she does NOT serve prison time, I expect to see complaints to the Attorney General.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

So again, she should be looking at around five years inside, with NO possibility of a suspended sentence, because the MINIMUM sentence for s18 is three years in prison, which cannot be suspended.

If she does NOT serve prison time, I expect to see complaints to the Attorney General.

It was only a cyclist though.

£50 fine and a driving course will be sufficient.