Medical evidence and causation
Photographs, hospital records, GP notes, forensic evidence and expert opinion may be used to establish the nature and seriousness of injury. The defence should also ask whether the alleged act actually caused the injury relied upon and whether the medical chronology is consistent with the prosecution account.
Where injuries developed later, there were multiple participants, or the complainant had a pre-existing condition, causation may need particularly careful analysis.
Self-defence, CCTV and witness evidence
CCTV, body-worn video, doorbell footage, photographs, 999 calls and independent witnesses can materially alter an assault allegation. Where self-defence is raised, the sequence of events, perceived threat and force used need to be assessed against the evidence rather than hindsight.
The seriousness of an injury does not by itself prove the intention required for section 18. Conversely, relatively limited visible injury does not make the surrounding conduct irrelevant. Injury, intent and circumstances must be analysed separately.
How we build an assault pre-charge case
We reconstruct the incident from interview accounts, CCTV, witness evidence, medical records, photographs, messages before or after the event and any forensic material. We then separate the questions of identity, unlawful force, causation, injury and state of mind.
Where evidence is missing, we can identify reasonable enquiries such as preserving footage, obtaining full medical material, locating witnesses or clarifying how an injury is said to have occurred.
What can pre-charge representations achieve?
Where justified, representations can address self-defence, causation, unreliable identification, contradictory CCTV or witness material, the medical evidence, the required intent and whether the proposed charge overstates what the evidence can prove. No outcome can be guaranteed.
What should you send us for the first review?
ABH & GBH pre-charge FAQs
What is the difference between ABH and GBH?
ABH under section 47 requires bodily harm that is more than transient or trifling. GBH means really serious harm. The assessment is fact-specific and can take account of the effect of the injury on the particular person.
What is the difference between section 20 and section 18 GBH?
Both can involve wounding or grievous bodily harm, but the mental element is materially different. Section 20 can be established where the defendant intended or foresaw some physical harm. Section 18 requires the specific intent required by the statute—ordinarily intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with a separate statutory route involving intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension.
Does a serious injury automatically mean section 18?
No. Injury and intent must be analysed separately. A severe injury can be relevant evidence, but section 18 requires proof of the necessary specific intent. Evidence such as weapon use, prior threats, planning, repetition and the manner of the attack can be relevant to what intent may properly be inferred.
Can self-defence be raised in an ABH or GBH investigation?
Potentially, yes. The chronology, the threat as the suspect honestly perceived it, the force used, CCTV, body-worn video, 999 calls and witness evidence can all be important. The issue should be assessed from the evidence rather than hindsight.
Can pre-charge representations affect charge selection?
Potentially. Where the evidence supports it, representations can address the injury level, causation, self-defence, identification, medical evidence, the mental element and whether the proposed charge overstates what can properly be proved. No outcome can be guaranteed.
Prepared by Theodorous. Principal Solicitor: Paris Theodorou.