S18 GBH wounding intent dropped - Snaresbrook Crown Court 2022

Our client was charged with a S18 GBH allegation at the Crown Court. It was alleged that he attempted a stabbing with a knife. The CPS alleged our client had become violent and launched an unprovoked attack on arrival home to his multi-occupancy home. Our client was accused of starting a violent altercation where he had brandished the knife and threatened to cause serious injury.

Our client’s case was that he arrived home and was attacked by the complainant and his friend. He used reasonable self-defence to defend himself from the knife attack.

Our client asserted that he had to defend himself with a weapon namely a knife after he had disarmed the complainant. The complaint received lacerations to his ear, injuries to his face and injuries to his hand.

We acted at the police station and advised our client to make a full comment interview, this ensured he would avoid any negative inference being drawn against him at trial.

 Our client maintained his innocence and asserted that he only acted in lawful self-defence. Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in case law -

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of (in the alternative): -

self-defence;

defence of another;

defence of property;

prevention of crime;

lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, there are two questions:

was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all?; and

was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

Due to the extensive review of the prosecution papers and witness Statements, we were able to find substantial inconsistencies within the Prosecution’s Case and our strong representations led to the Prosecution offering No Evidence, prior to Trial. Had our client been convicted he would have faced a lengthy prison sentence. We are experts at arguing cases of self-defence.