Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do you have any particular questions?

What country are we talking about here (England, Scotland, etc)?

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

"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.

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 ?

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).

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 from: Southpaw82 on January 30, 2026, 05:06:37 pm

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).

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.

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.

As to 2, the court may well take the view that he knows whether he’s guilty or not - it’s not a case of seeing what the prosecution’s hand is and then deciding (at least not without losing some discount off the sentence).

As to 3, if the prosecution accept the basis of plea he will be sentenced on that basis. There’s then no need to dispute the prosecution’s evidence. If the basis of plea isn’t accepted then it’s up to the court to decide if the difference between the prosecution’s version and his will make a material difference to sentencing - if it will they will order a Newton hearing, at which both sides can call evidence.

As to 4, yes.

Your information appears to be subtley different to what New Judge stated.

In what way?