Letter of Advice to Client in Respect of Crime Alleged

This letter provides legal advice to a defendant, Peter Matthews, who is seeking legal aid for a criminal offence of assault causing bodily harm. The letter discusses the facts of the case, the elements of the offence, possible defenses, the importance of caution during police interviews, and the potential penalties. It also addresses common questions and concerns of the client.

Law and Legal
Practice

Peter Matthews
Block K, Unit 101, Tower Bridge Complex
London, SE16 4DG
Subject: Letter of Advice to client in respect of crime alleged
Dear,
This letter is in concern to the defendant Peter Matthews, seeking legal aid for the
criminal offence he had committed. As per the facts, the defendant is alleged of assault causing
bodily harm. In my all honesty, let me impart you with the necessary advice on the case in
hand.
The initial request I would like to make, as a legal advisor for my client to respective
custody police officer is to provide me with all the related information of the detained person
i.e. Peter Matthews and any other associated offences accompanied by the circumstances of
such detention. Whether relevant police officer had conducted the investigation without any
partiality and crime was recorded in accordance with the provisions of law, or not. Another
request is to disclose the accurate details of the place where the offence was committed. Also
provide me with the informations of the police officers present at the place of crime and those
officers involved in the case. The respective custody officer is requested to disclose the
investigation report along with the annexures in order to verify the evidence evolved in respect
of crime. Along with the report kindly disclose any evidence found in support of detention, any
other charges where my client Peter can seek or applied for bail in anticipation of crime alleged.
Further, I want to know whether all such informations obtained are recorded in a proper manner
according to the provisions of code practice by the police officer under, The Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984, without any refusals or request made to the police officer in

charge, if any provide me with the same.
According to the facts, my client is accused of assault which led bodily harm. Thus, the
substantive law in this offence committed is Assault causing actual bodily harm, under Section
47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861, firstly both the offence of assault and battery
cannot be charged against the same person under the same act. But the common assault includes
an element of assault as well as battery. An Assault as per law means an act caused by a person
with an intention to apprehend immediate unlawful offence. The two elements of the offence
alleged are Actus reus, which means a guilty of criminal act include physical harm and Mens
rea, means guilty mind i.e. criminal intention of committing an act (Fenimore, 2019). In my
legal advice, Peter committed the act in his self defence as the force was used to defend from
the attack of plaintiff. While defending himself, Peter was unable to decide whether the force
used was beyond his values. It is the burden on the prosecution to decide whether Peter's guilt is
beyond reasonable doubt. In simple words burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of person alleged. The prosecution need to prove, firstly, the act caused another person
fear or unlawful violence, secondly the person accused touched without consent, the person
accused committed an act intentionally, thirdly the accused has no such lawful excuse for his
actions and lastly caused injury or injuries causing physical injury or injuries.
One of the ingredient to prove a crime lack which is mens rea, as Peter has no such
intention to commit a crime, thus crime requires the proof of mens rea which is not yet provided
by the plaintiff. Further, Peter has no foresight of the and recklessness in consequences of his
actions. Also there was no knowledge of the results occurred from his actions. According to the
Latin phase, a person cannot be held guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty. Thus, for a
person to be held liable for criminal offence, the two above discussed elements must be required
to be present along with the concurrence of mens rea the actions which led actus reus and in this
case no such element as well as coincidence found. The police officer need to prove that the
Peter, accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, also the officer need to prove that he
committed the assault intentionally which caused an injury amounting to actual bodily harm
(Iliadis, 2020).
The defences to assault under the criminal law are, first is defence of insanity in which
the defendant argues that he/she was not in state of mind to justify there actions were wrong.
Second is defence of intoxication in which defendant consumes toxic products and unable to

understand his/her actions. Third is the mistake of law in which defendant believes his or
actions were lawful. Fourth is the common which is the self defence in which defendant argues
his or actions were to defend himself or herself. Similarly, in the defence of duress, the
defendant argues that he was forced to do the act by other. Further in case of no crime occurred
the defence can be consent, in which defendant may argue that the consent of other party is
involved in the act. Other defence is entrapment, in which government is involved and force
the individual to commit a crime. In my view, the defence which the Peter likely to seek
forward is the self defence and defence of accident. As per the criminal law it is a complete
defence involving unlawful use of force. For the court to believe that the conduct is necessary it
is required that the accused acted to defend himself or herself, in this case Peter conduct seem
necessary to defend the imminent attack made by the victim. On raising the defence it is up to
officer hearing the charge to find the action of accused amounts to self defence or not. Another
defence which in my suggestions will be suitable for Peter is defence of accident, sometimes
physical injury is caused by an accident. Thus, an unintentional use of force is not considered as
assault, as per its elements. Peter has no such mental intentional to commit the assault i.e. there
was the omission of mens rea (Chan and Shehtman, 2019).
Generally, the caution can be seen at an early stage when the accused is being asked the
questions and it is suspected by the police officer that the crime is committed by the accused
only. The purpose of caution is to warn that although the individual has a right to remain silent
but such silence may led the prosecution's case against the accused when he/she chooses not to
explain his/her side. This may cause a jury to devise an adverse inference at any stage of
proceedings. The caution is also administered when accused is being interviewed, as officers
provide full opportunity to the person alleged to answer against the allegations charged upon
and give his own evidences and statements before a decision is made by the prosecution. Thus,
the officer conducts an interview under caution within the meaning of Code C of The Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Houidi and Paruk, 2021). If officer led failure to caution a person
in interview and continue to suspect him or her, the evidence evolved in the interview may not
be admissible. An accurate record of interview is required to be made. Therefore, in my advice
Peter need to consider the necessity and the relevance of the caution discussed above in general.
I would like to advice my client regarding his involvement and participation in the
police interview, to exercise the Human Rights fully under Code C, code of practice for the

detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers. Peter must be aware of his
rights in relation to redressal and protection. He shall exercise the legal right to appoint a
solicitor while he being interviewed by the police officers (Hardyns and Rummens, 2018). Peter
must note whether all the information disclosed by him are recorded in a proper manner
according to the provisions of law. Further he can ask all necessary social, material,
psychological and other assistances and it is duty of the relevant police officer to provide with
the same. Also peter should keep in mind that he do not have to answer all the questions of the
police and he need to ask the police the proper reasons for the detention. For the betterment of
client, it is suggested to Peter to remain silent and should not answer questions fired on him or
make any statement or participate in any police interview. Furthermost, he need to insist that he
would like to talk to his lawyer before police interview.
Regarding the bail, the police in England and Wales can grant Pre-charge bail under
Part 4 of the Police and Criminal and Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Under this act Peter can be
released until the police completes its investigations, as he cannot be detained unnecessarily.
PCB in general means person detained can be released from the police custody while police
officers continue their investigation (Poyser and Nurse, 2018). Bail can be granted with or
without condition unless it appears to the police officers who is granting bail that a condition is
required in order to prevent the accused in committing further offences. Further the assault
differs on the seriousness of the injury. According to law a person guilty of assault occasioning
actual bodily harm is liable, on conviction on indictment and punished with an imprisonment
for a term not exceeding five years, on summary conviction shall be punished with an
imprisonment for term not exceeding seven years, or fine, or both.
Most of time assault amounting actual bodily harm is dealt by Local Court sentencing a
punishment of imprisonment not exceeding two years. According to Section 47 of the Offence
Against the Persons Act 1861, the individual committing assault amounting to actual bodily
harm is punished with an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and in case of
aggravated offence the imprisonment is for a term not exceeding 7 years. Further, court assess
the harm caused by the person accused, depends on the circumstances of the case. The penalty
ordered by the magistrate depends on the the injury or injuries caused, degree of violence or
force applied, whether the assault was committed by the accused intentionally knowing the after
effects and other circumstances involved in the case (Tugendhat, 2017). Other than prison

sentence, the accused can also be punished with the other related penalties such as ordering the
accused to be detained at home, inherit fine good behaviour and other which the court may
think fit in or in the best interest of the parties. Most of the time in case where assault is not
proved properly the court penalise the accused with good behaviour bond for some specific
tenure.
The first question which generally comes into the mind after conducting an action which
led to crime is “Will I go to jail?” “What statement he is required to make while participating
in police interview?”. Thus, such questions trigger the mind and soul of the accused. The client
if unknown of the Human Rights of Victims, may ask about the rights and how can he exercise
them in his best interest. Another question may be related to the police interview, in which the
client may be in dilemma about the statements he is or not likely to spill out from his mouth.
The client usually asks about the consequences of the actions conducted by them. Another most
important question which a client may likely to ask is the charges he has been alleged with and
the penalties accompanied with such charges. Also if the charges consist the penalties of
rigorous nature such as imprisonment for term not exceeding 7 years, the client may ask the
measures of reducing the penalty ordered by the court. The client may also ask about the
evidences which may be admissible before investigating police officer and magistrate. Thus,
such questions need to be answered in a precise manner.
Fell free to follow legal aid as provided in the letter and if any other help needed, do revert me.
Sincerely,
XYZ
Legal Advisor

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Chan, B. and Shehtman, M., 2019. Clinical risk factors of acute severe or fatal violence among
forensic mental health patients. Psychiatry research, 275, pp.20-26.
Fenimore, D.M., 2019. Mapping harmspots: An exploration of the spatial distribution of crime
harm. Applied geography, 109, p.102034.
Hardyns, W. and Rummens, A., 2018. Predictive policing as a new tool for law enforcement?
Recent developments and challenges. European journal on criminal policy and
research, 24(3), pp.201-218.
Houidi, A. and Paruk, S., 2021. A narrative review of international legislation regulating fitness
to stand trial and criminal responsibility: Is there a perfect system?. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 74, p.101666.
Iliadis, M., 2020. Adversarial Justice and Victims' Rights: Reconceptualising the Role of Sexual
Assault Victims. Routledge.
Poyser, S. and Nurse, A., 2018. Miscarriages of justice: Causes, consequences and remedies.
Policy Press.
Tugendhat, M., 2017. Liberty Intact: Human Rights in English Law. Oxford University Press.