bigfluffylemon wrote: Of course, it's a big if at this point. The video that looks pretty damning could turn out to be, in fact, pretty damning. What sort of sentence could Stokes be looking at if found guilty of assault (assuming he pleads guilty)? Is jail time a possibility, or is it more likely to be a fine and a suspended sentence? Any lawyers out there?
Its difficult to paint an exact picture without knowing the extent of the victims injury. The single biggest factor in how assault cases are decided or charged will rest in the nature and extent of the injury to the victim. If the punch drew blood, broke a bone or cracked a tooth, then the seriousness cranks up. Assuming its a standard sore head from a blow, which I would think is most likely, then the court will probably charge him with a section 47 ABH. Its likely he could be charged with common assault with battery, but the nature of that video suggests the punch was far more likely to cause actual bodily harm than a mere throw away scuffle, as he does hunt the guy down when the other has stopped.
Once the police charge him, the courts essentially will try to categorize the offence into three varying scopes with different punishments. The first would be greater levels of actual bodily harm with greater culpability or intention/recklessness. The second would be serious greater levels with less culpability. The third is less harm, less culpability. The resultant punishment reduces with each category. In deciding the levels of harm, they will look at the actual injury and usually take into account if the nature of the incident was repeated or sustained. In deciding culpability, they will look at how premeditated it was, how much the assailant was looking to cause the damage inflicted, was he armed, was the victim targeted for sexuality or race, was the victim vulnerable. Low culpability is also taking into account provocation, subordinate to the initial actions, and people who are more likely misjudging their actions on excessive self defence.
Its arguable that in the most extreme case, Stokes knocked his tooth out or gave him a serious concussion, and that when he attacks the guy on the floor and later punches him as he is trying to retreat, one could argue the damage and culpability is high because hes attacking a vulnerable person, but that would seem very extreme interpretation. Much more likely, the court would accept he was provoked and that the damage was not that serious, and this is a low level offence.
Once that category is established, the court will take a mostly predetermined tariff punishment. Cases of category 1 (high damage, full intention to cause it), the court will be looking 1 and a half years in jail, depending on circumstances, a maximum of 3 years, a lowest 1 year. Category 2 offences (high damage, less intention) looking 6 months as par, up to a year worst case, community service best case. Category 3 is a fine and community service, length of which is decided on severity.
In deciding the scope inside each category of offence (ie is it 1 or 3 years in prison for Cat 1) you then look at the victims past record, was it a single blow or repeated, where there other people present like children that might have affected the attackers actions, where and when the offence was made, circumstances etc. Has the attacker shown remorse and seeked behavioral help. Has he subjected himself willfully to the law, and helped police. Is it an isolated incident in the attackers life. Essentially, they will look at everything, but its key to note that this does not help the actual charge being levied, only the punishment inside the bracket already predetermined. After that is decided, the only really relevant thing is whether or not the victim pleaded guilty, which can reduce the punishment further.