Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The Acid Test.

All matters involving criminal law

The Acid Test.

Postby shootist » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:17 am

Much in the news of late, are the assaults using acid. We have lawyer here, and a few members who seem to know the solutions to all mans ills. How should these attacks be dealt with?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:20 am

I'm not sure that I understand the question as the answer is so obvious: they should be caught and locked up.
What is the maximum sentence for GBH?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10104
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:37 am

It depends whether it is a s.20 offence (where a person unlawfully and maliciously wounds or causes gbh) or a s.18 offence (inflicting gbh with intent to cause gbh). Five for the former, life for the latter. You can also get life for throwing a corrosive substance with intent (s.29). It is also an offence apparently to carry a corrosive substance with intent to cause harm.

If there is a change in the law required, then it is probably to make it harder to obtain some of these substances (the local MP has suggested amending the Explosives Precursors Regulations, so that a purchaser would need a licence to buy sulphuric acid). But you are right, what is needed more than anything is to catch people who commit these crimes.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby atticus » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:52 am

As "lawyer here", I agree.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19893
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:44 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote: It is also an offence apparently to carry a corrosive substance with intent to cause harm.

Clearly it is an offensive weapon, but did you mean more than that?

If there is a change in the law required, then it is probably to make it harder to obtain some of these substances (the local MP has suggested amending the Explosives Precursors Regulations, so that a purchaser would need a licence to buy sulphuric acid)...

It has also been suggested that carrying acid comes under the same rules as carrying a knife: ie the onus is on the carrier to prove proper grounds. I see no problem with that idea.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10104
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby shootist » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:51 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Clearly it is an offensive weapon, but did you mean more than that?


Section 29 OAP Act 1861

Causing gunpowder to explode, or sending to any person an explosive substance, or throwing corrosive fluid on a person, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously cause any gunpowder or other explosive substance to explode, or send or deliver to or cause to be taken or received by any person any explosive substance or any other dangerous or noxious thing, or put or lay at any place, or cast or throw at or upon or otherwise apply to any person, any corrosive fluid or any destructive or explosive substance, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, shall, whether any bodily injury be effected or not, be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life . . . or to be imprisoned . . .

Hairyloon wrote:It has also been suggested that carrying acid comes under the same rules as carrying a knife: ie the onus is on the carrier to prove proper grounds. I see no problem with that idea.


At present this is not the case. An amendment to the law to that effect would be useful but I suspect that is such a change is attempted it will be ballsed up, but that's perhaps just me being a pessimist.

The suggestion that the offenders should be caught and locked up is, however commendable, rather pointless given the clear up rate for crime in general. Furthermore, catching them and locking them up is much too late for the poor bloody victim. It is prevention that's needed. That might be partly achieved by licensing such products, but enforcing laws on violent crime, with sentences that match it's significant will have to play it's part too. [Deleted by Moderator]
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:19 pm

Those may be facts, or they may not. They may be completely innocent: they haven't even been charged yet, let alone convicted. Either way, they are entitled to a fair trial.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby shootist » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:48 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:Those may be facts, or they may not. They may be completely innocent: they haven't even been charged yet, let alone convicted. Either way, they are entitled to a fair trial.


Of course they are entitled to a fair trial. They may be completely innocent. One has been charged BTW, but, as you so very righteously say, he has yet to be convicted. I will amend my post if possible, to sooth your troubled senses. The victims are entitled to their faces. That is a fact.

Edit: Nope. too late. But I'm sure that justice will not be denied.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: The Acid Test.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:57 pm

The Metropolitan Police announced that one suspect had been charged at 21:27 so my post was correct at the time. Nevertheless as a person has now been charged s.1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies so I have removed the final sentence of your post. May I remind others tempted to speculate on this case that the penalties for contempt are heinous (and nothing to do with my troubled senses).
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.


Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron