DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107917--------------------------------------------------
Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Mayhem007 Date: January 29, 2026, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunday afternoon our landlords son Callum had an argument with
his 5 month pregnant partner Lilly.
The circumstances are that through heated argument he pushed her
onthe shoulders and she ended up on the bed. She told him to
leave the house and he said the only he would leave the house,
was if she phoned the police, which she did and the police
turned up ten minutes after the reported situation.
He was taken to the police station and provided an alcholic
breath test of 105mg. He was maintained in the polce station
until his breath test fell below 35mg. He was released 13 hours
later. Bail conditions were he could not contact his partner in
all respects.
Lilly did not press charges, but the police have charged him
with common assault, to appear in court on 24.03.2026. Incident
happened 25.01.2026.
He has today 29.01.2026 been to the police station to be
formally been advised of the charge and bail cnonditions are
still in place. The baby is due July 2026.
Lilly has been phoning the police to say that she needs her
partner to help her through pregancy, anxiety and stress.
Unfortunately, Callum cannot afford a solicitor to fight the
case of both of them to be together.
It is totally wrong and for the establishment to separate two
people over a minor situation.
Many of you will have questions and any advice whould be
welcome.
#Post#: 107921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Southpaw82 Date: January 29, 2026, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any particular questions?
What country are we talking about here (England, Scotland, etc)?
#Post#: 108003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: NewJudge Date: January 30, 2026, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For some years now the CPS has adopted the policy of pursuing
allegations of domestic violence (DV) with or without the
alleged victim’s co-operation wherever possible. You say that
Lily has declined to “press charges”. That is not a decision for
her to make. The CPS decides whether or not to bring charges,
not the victim.
If he wants his bail conditions varied he will have to request a
hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. He does not need a solicitor
to do this.
When he appears in court for his first hearing in March he will
be able to call on the services of the duty solicitor to help
him decide on his plea, to formulate any defence or mitigation
and to speak on his behalf. But those services will be limited
to the first hearing only. If he requires legal representation
beyond that he will have to apply for Legal Aid and if that is
declined he will have to pay for it himself.
One of the main reasons that the police and CPS adopt a rigid
attitude towards domestic violence matters is that statistics
show that in the overwhelming majority of cases, perpetrators of
DV - especially those prone to commit assaults whilst drunk -
only get worse and increase the ferocity of their assaults.
#Post#: 108035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Mayhem007 Date: January 30, 2026, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The alleged offence was in England.
New Judge thanks for your reply, which has enabled me to
research the subject. He would need to apply to the officer in
charge of the case, in the first instance to request a bail
variation. If this is refused then he may apply to the
magistrates with the appropriate form.
I have many questions, but first I would like to know the
meaning of indirectly as mentioned in the condition below
Condition Number 1 – NOT TO CONTACT WITNESSES
Reason For Condition
This is someone linked to the investigation and therefore any
contact is likely to lead to further offences.
Condition
Not to contact or interfere with, either directly or indirectly,
Lilly.
Condition Status
Current
#Post#: 108046--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: NewJudge Date: January 30, 2026, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Indirectly" means via a third party.
He must not contact Lily by any means himself (including phone,
post, text, email, social media etc.) nor must he contact her by
asking a third party to pass on a message by any means.
This is a standard bail condition imposed by police in cases of
DV and they are unlikely to vary it (though no harm in asking).
Similarly a court would be very reluctant to intervene, even if
Lily supports the change (but again, no harm in making a
request).
One thing he must beware of is if Lily contacts him. He must not
respond to any texts, emails, etc. If he does this will be seen
as breach of his bail conditions and he may find himself in
custody. Similarly if they meet in the street he must walk away
and not engage with her in any way. It my seem perverse but Lily
does not commit any wrong if she contacts him, but he does if he
responds.
This is a very common reason for bail breaches as the person on
bail thinks it is acceptable to respond - it is not.
#Post#: 108049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Mayhem007 Date: January 30, 2026, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=9729.msg108046#msg108046
date=1769786939]
"Indirectly" means via a third party.
He must not contact Lily by any means himself (including phone,
post, text, email, social media etc.) nor must he contact her by
asking a third party to pass on a message by any means.
This is a standard bail condition imposed by police in cases of
DV and they are unlikely to vary it (though no harm in asking).
Similarly a court would be very reluctant to intervene, even if
Lily supports the change (but again, no harm in making a
request).
One thing he must beware of is if Lily contacts him. He must not
respond to any texts, emails, etc. If he does this will be seen
as breach of his bail conditions and he may find himself in
custody. Similarly if they meet in the street he must walk away
and not engage with her in any way. It my seem perverse but Lily
does not commit any wrong if she contacts him, but he does if he
responds.
This is a very common reason for bail breaches as the person on
bail thinks it is acceptable to respond - it is not.
[/quote]
Many thanks New Judge, I will make him aware of the
consequences.
It would seem that he was initially charged with common assault,
however his charge sheet 29/01/2026 stipulates an offence code
of CJ88116 Assault and battery[rather than CJ88001
Commonassault]. His charge sheet also stipulates the following :
Charge
On 25/01/2026 at Town and county assaulted Lilly by beating her
CJ88116 CCCJS Offence code.
Contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Just Act1988.
This is an exageration of the alleged offence. And Lilly did
exagerate the situation of what happened when she phoned 999.
She has apparently not given any evidence, so presumably the
police are relying on the recording of the 999 call. Lilly is
heavily pregnant and received news, 30/01/2026 that her Father
does not have long to live and he is being transferred from
hospital to a care with special surgical needs. Added to her
isolation, being pregnant and her farther with terminal illness
she is in an abandoned bad place without her partner.
I have informed Callum of the Indirect meaning. I have advised
that he goes to citizen advice bureau, who may be able to
recommend a solicitor who will represent him with legal aid.
However, I am friends with Lilly, so in essence can I visit her
and give her advice without the knowledge of Callum, which I
would truely abide by. Also, I would inform her I cannot relay
any information from her partner. If I adhered to the letter of
the law and gave advice to both Callum and Lilly without any
transfer of information between the two, would this be within
the boundary of the law and not be contrary to the 'Indirect'
wording?
Can a solicitor liaise with Callum and Lilly ?
#Post#: 108053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Southpaw82 Date: January 30, 2026, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If he touched her, assault by beating is correct. The offence is
properly one at common law, s 39 of the CJA merely specifying
the penalty - but it seems to have become practice to say it’s
an offence under that section (not that it makes any
difference).
#Post#: 108057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Mayhem007 Date: January 30, 2026, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Southpaw82 link=topic=9729.msg108053#msg108053
date=1769792797]
If he touched her, assault by beating is correct. The offence is
properly one at common law, s 39 of the CJA merely specifying
the penalty - but it seems to have become practice to say it’s
an offence under that section (not that it makes any
difference).
[/quote]
So in essence whilst CJ88001 Common assault and CJ88116 Battery
can embody the same physical alleged offence, and each of them
have a variation on the sentence that can be imposed on the
alleged offender. Is this correct.
Is it possible for a defendant to plead not guilty to CJ88116
and guilty to CJ88001. Or does he plead not guilty to the charge
under the offence code of CJ88116.
If he pleads guilty to the charge will the court listen to
evidence to mitigate the alleged offence.
#Post#: 108059--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: NewJudge Date: January 30, 2026, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible for a defendant to plead not guilty to CJ88116
and guilty to CJ88001.
Forget those codes – they’re used by the police and CPS for
charging purposes. He will be charged with Common Assault
(Assault by beating).
Before he enters his plea, he should be served with the evidence
the CPS intend to rely on to convict him. He will have three
choices of plea. If he agrees with the evidence and he is guilty
he should plead guilty. If he does not believe the evidence does
not support his commission of the offence he should plead not
guilty. However, if he believes he is guilty but disagrees with
the evidence the CPS have provided he can offer to plead guilty
on a “basis of plea”. His means he agrees he is guilty but
disagrees with the evidence offered.
If the CPS does not accept his offer the court will then have to
decide whether the different versions of events would have a
significant effect on their sentence. If so, they must either
order a hearing to hear evidence from both sides, or they must
accept the defendant’s version when deciding their sentence.
If he simply pleads guilty, he will be able to offer any
mitigation to the court.
#Post#: 108069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Partner charged with Common law assault
By: Southpaw82 Date: January 30, 2026, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mayhem007 link=topic=9729.msg108057#msg108057
date=1769795680]
[quote author=Southpaw82 link=topic=9729.msg108053#msg108053
date=1769792797]
If he touched her, assault by beating is correct. The offence is
properly one at common law, s 39 of the CJA merely specifying
the penalty - but it seems to have become practice to say it’s
an offence under that section (not that it makes any
difference).
[/quote]
So in essence whilst CJ88001 Common assault and CJ88116 Battery
can embody the same physical alleged offence, and each of them
have a variation on the sentence that can be imposed on the
alleged offender. Is this correct.
Is it possible for a defendant to plead not guilty to CJ88116
and guilty to CJ88001. Or does he plead not guilty to the charge
under the offence code of CJ88116.
If he pleads guilty to the charge will the court listen to
evidence to mitigate the alleged offence.
[/quote]
If you could drop using those codes that would be great - let’s
stick with “assault” (intentionally or recklessly putting a
person in fear of the immediate application of unlawful force)
and “battery” (intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful
force to another).
They are not the same, though a battery is inherently more
serious than an assault, all else being equal.
He can only plead to the offence charged. He can offer a deal to
the prosecution to plead guilty to a different charge (assuming
it can be preferred properly) in return for another charge being
dropped. The real question is whether the prosecution would do
that deal.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page