Coughing major in court again. Justice or not?

#1
Quiz show cheat guilty of assault

TV quiz show cheat Charles Ingram has been convicted of assaulting a 13-year-old boy who coughed in his face.

The prosecution case succeeded despite descending into farce as the victim agreed he had "made up" a lot of his evidence.

Announcing the verdict, magistrate Marilyn Perry at the court in Salisbury, Wiltshire, told a visibly shocked Ingram: "We do not accept the defence of self-defence and find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt." She imposed an absolute discharge and made no order for costs or compensation.

Ingram, a father of three, said after the case: "I just can't believe this. Common sense dictates that if the prosecution witnesses lie then I should get off. I'm devastated. I would love to appeal but I'll have to consult my solicitor."

The court heard how the boy coughed to amuse friends he was with. It was intended to mock the former Army major's use of coughs to cheat on ITV's Who Want To Be A Millionaire?, he told the trial.

Ingram, a 43-year-old former Army major, was convicted in 2003 of cheating his way to a million pounds by using accomplices' coughs in the audience to guide him to the correct answers.

While jogging near his Wiltshire home last April in the village of Urchfont, Ingram was coughed at by the boy, now 14. According to Ingram, who denied common assault, the cough coated his face in spit and was in fact an assault on him.

Ingram immediately confronted the boy, grabbed him by the lapels and said: "If you do that again you will regret it," the court heard. He then jogged off along Urchfont High Street.

The boy, giving evidence today via a video link, claimed he was pushed up against a wall by Ingram, making him "shocked" and "scared". Cross-examined by defence lawyer John Berry, the boy agreed he had invented that part. The boy told the court: "I thought I would get into really big trouble for being cheeky so I made up the thing about the wall."

In 2003 Ingram, his wife Diana and university lecturer Tecwen Whittock were convicted of deception for attempting to cheat on Chris Tarrant's ITV quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Sa.../1157193546559?packedargs=suffix=BreakingNews

Dunno which way to go on this one.

Should the judge have dismissed it?
or
Does it serve the cheating get right?
or
Should he have stcuk the head on the little chav, and claimed 'accident'?

Over to you - the great legal minds of ARRSE!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
What a waste of public money! Is the "youff" now going to be charged with wasting police and court time. No - 'cos Ingram was found guilty of doing what any one of us would do, therefore the scrote was in the right. WTF is that all about?
 
#4
Agreed - this isn't Justice. What Major Ingram did before isn't at issue or on trial here. At issue is simply whether a lout, posing in front of a gang of other louts, can assault and humiliate someone going about his business, then lie under oath and not only get away with it but get his victim to be prosecuted!! Amazingly the answer appears to be yes. :roll:
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
Seriously, you guys are going to argue any side of this? Since when was coughing in someone's face 'assault'? Since when was grabbing someone by the lapels 'assault'?

A lad jumped out from behind a bush the other day when I was on my bike. Gave me a bit of a shock, but tbh good bite on his part, had to smile. Reading this, perhaps I should prosecute...
 
#6
when someone spits in your face, as was alleged in this case, that is common assault as is any unwanted contact with your body.

Sorry but it's that simple.
 
#7
datumhead said:
when someone spits in your face, as was alleged in this case, that is common assault as is any unwanted contact with your body.

Sorry but it's that simple.
Physical contact is not necessary - as was pointed out to me by the RMP NCO who was called by the lout (a WO1's son) I had gripped for - repeatedly - trashing my back garden fence in Bielefeld.

Sadly (well, sadly from the boy's point of view), I was a much better liar than him; "Never laid a finger on him, horficer, 'onest." :biggrin:
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Hhhhm, on the one hand you've got a lying tw@t who can't lie his way out of a paper bag, and is a lousy cheat, and has no imagination whatsoever and by all accounts is a total throbber, and on the other hand you've got some idiot scrote who coughs in his face in the style of a p!ss-poor throbber who is bad at cheating.

Throbber should take it on the chin - he asked for his infamy by being a throbber after all.

Had it been me however, I'd have twatted the little shoite, but I'd have made sure he didn't have any witnesses.

Cough sweets anyone?
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
datumhead said:
when someone spits in your face, as was alleged in this case, that is common assault as is any unwanted contact with your body.

Sorry but it's that simple.
Possible I was drawing a difference between common assault and 'assault'...

Case should never have made court. That simple.
 
#10
Irrespective of what Maj (Retd) Ingram has done in the past , nobody (including him) deserves to be spat at in the face by some little chav gobshite. It's a shame he didn't punch the little scrote - at least that would have been value for money on the assault charge.
 
#11
datumhead said:
when someone spits in your face, as was alleged in this case, that is common assault as is any unwanted contact with your body.

Sorry but it's that simple.
Not that it really matters but is this version of 'assault' referring to legislation? I believe that at common law (Tort) unwanted physical contact is a battery, whereas giving someone the reasonable expectation that you are about to commit an act of that nature is an assault.
 
#12
Charles Ingram is a disgrace to the British officer corps. Fact.

He is however vaguely human and I can understand how he reacted to the little scrote as he did. His problem is that the scrote's parents were too fly by half. Stand by for "My 13 year old's hell at hands of cheating major" stories in the media. Ker-ching, Sun newspaper cheque book? That will do nicely...

Frankly, it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate cheating, lying, weak, feeble, can't write novels for toffee sort of a guy. Throbber.
 
#13
Cuddles said:
Charles Ingram is a disgrace to the British officer corps. Fact

Frankly, it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate cheating, lying, weak, feeble, can't write novels for toffee sort of a guy. Throbber.
There you go again Cuddles,sitting on the fence :D How do you really feel about him :?: :?:
 
#14
Ethel_the_Aardvark said:
Irrespective of what Maj (Retd) Ingram has done in the past , nobody (including him) deserves to be spat at in the face by some little chav gobshite. It's a shame he didn't punch the little scrote - at least that would have been value for money on the assault charge.
Too right. Lay the gobshyte out
 
#16
topcat68 said:
Cuddles said:
Charles Ingram is a disgrace to the British officer corps. Fact

Frankly, it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate cheating, lying, weak, feeble, can't write novels for toffee sort of a guy. Throbber.
There you go again Cuddles,sitting on the fence :D How do you really feel about him :?: :?:
You're right, I'm not usually so indecisive but the strangely named, bearded, second-string academic who coughs to let me know how I should answer is absent today.
 
#17
Sarastro said:
Seriously, you guys are going to argue any side of this? Since when was coughing in someone's face 'assault'? Since when was grabbing someone by the lapels 'assault'?
Well at least according to the North West Hunt Saboteurs:

Assault & Battery
Assault and Battery are two different offences of common law.

An assault is - "any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful ad personal violence."

And a battery is - "any act by which a person, intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence upon another person."

Therefore a typical example of an assault would include where a person rides or drives at another person or shakes a fist under their nose, or points a loaded gun or knife at someone.By contrast, a battery requires that there must be some contact between the person who inflicts the violence and the victim.

Common assault is a common law offence.However by section 42 (and section 47) of the Offences Against the Persons Act (OAPA) a person committing any common assault or battery may be imprisoned or compelled to pay fines and costs.Section 42 therefore implies that there are offences committed either when someone is put in fear of unlawful violence (assault) or when there is an unlawful application of force to the person of another (battery).

In reality, common assault is only used in situations where a blow or another application of force is struck, but when no actual injury results.

Section 47 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.The assault may or may not include battery in the sense of actual contact with the victim i.e. if someone strikes another with their fist causing injury, this will be an assault causing actual bodily harm, as will striking a horse with a whip causing the rider to fall and injure themselves.

Actual bodily harm simply means some bodily harm.

Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting any grievous bodily harm upon another person.Unlawfully simply means without lawful excuse.

There are three possible lawful excuses, namely:-

a) Self defence

b) Accident

c) Consent

If any of these three ingredients are present then the defendant has a good defence in law.For the purpose of hunt sabotage it is only the first two which could apply.

Section 17 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with causing grievous bodily harm (Grievous Bodily Harm simply means some serious harm.Wounding is any breaking of the skin).

The distinction between section 18 and 19 of this act is that there is an extra ingredient in the former which is commonly called "Specific Intent", that is the intention to cause really serious harm.

In many incidents it is not necessary for there to be a definition given of the specific intent to really cause serious harm. i.e. if the victim is sitting in their garden and someone approaches them from behind and splits their skull open with a pick-axe handle, then there can be no question of the intent to really seriously harm.

However, it's sometimes said that the definition includes a desire on the part of the assailant to cause really serious harm as opposed to the situation with section 20 where the assailant I simply reckless as to whether any such harm be caused.

The defence of self defence must be understood, it is obvious that a person in imminent danger of attack should be able to defend themselves. It must be stressed however that self defence does not include retaliation, revenge or retribution. Such acts would constitute an offence, and the fact that an assault might be in revenge or retaliation would only be useful in mitigation.

Remember that the force used by a person to defend themselves must be proportional to the force being used by the attacker.This is meant to be reasonable.Having said that, it should be noted that in the moment of anguish when a person is under attack, it may not be possible to weigh to a nicety the exact amount of defensive action and force required.Therefore if the reaction of the person under attack is an honest and instinctive reaction then that will go a long way towards satisfying the elements of reasonableness and necessity.

The Law
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#18
Cheers for that Western - but really he should just have nutted him.

Ingram was not really guilty of anything - other than being caught AGAIN.

I still think that the scrote who lied consistently and got away with it should be lifted now and charged.

Telling porkies to Plod might be the bread and butter of Norman Stanley Fletcher, but at least he did his time (remember this is t'internet)
 
#19
Just answering the guy's question. I'm with you he should have dropped the twat.
 

Similar threads

Top