Using Force: A Look at UK Law for Self-Protection Practitioners

What Do I Do NowThe use of force is one of the main focuses in most self-protection training as well as in the martial arts. However, its justification and subsequent application to real violence is also singularly the least well-addressed area of understanding. In short, if practitioners train without an understanding of the law then while their training in use of force may be excellent, their knowledge of when, how and particularly why they should be using said force will be severely lacking.

The danger of this legal ignorance is binary: while some may be unwittingly training in such a way that they are unconsciously conditioning themselves to default to excessive and unjustifiable levels of force (or to use force when it is not necessary), others may become too afraid of legal repercussions to use sufficient force when it is legitimately required. Some may be so afraid of these ramifications that, through their perception that the law offers no protection to those acting in self-defence, they will not act at all. Thus, it is important that we address both the encouragement of violent aggression and the discouragement of legitimate use of force in self-defence as in different ways both of these unfortunate situations enable victimisation.

The following is a brief look at UK self-defence law in an attempt to discuss its meaning in terms of self-protection training to better explore what it means for practitioners of self-protection methods.

Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime

Whereas statute law more rigidly adheres to statutes that are designed to cover all eventualities, common law makes more use of judicial cases, meaning that judges can have more power to adapt to individual circumstances without Parliament having to enact legislation.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s website states that defence of the person (defending yourself or someone else) is covered by the common law. However, the following act should be borne in mind when considering the justification of self-defence:

Criminal Law Act 1967

Section 3, subsection 1 states that:

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Note that according to the CPS, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct. For matters involving property and householders, researching the Criminal Damage Act (1971) and Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 may be beneficial.

Thus we have two options for justifying use of force for self-defence in the event of an accusation of excessive or unreasonable use of force: the common law route which is concerned with support from case precedents and the statutory route where the justification is the prevention of a crime from taking place (i.e. an assault).

When Can we Use Self-Defence?

The CPS is very clear about what situations self-defence can be lawfully used in:

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

  • self-defence; or
  • defence of another; or
  • defence of property; or
  • prevention of crime; or
  • lawful arrest.

The only real ambiguity lies in this vague term: “reasonable force”. This is the point at which people typically become confused. Many practitioners and instructors can tend to gloss over this point, often leading to the following erroneous perspectives:

  • Use of any force aside from in training is strictly not allowable, and any action other than running away is difficult to justify as it demonstrates lack of control.
  • Any degree of force is justifiable if you honestly believed you were in danger at the time, as fear and adrenalisation are justifications for poor judgement of force.
  • “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”: simply disregarding the law altogether, simplifying the situation into a polarised choice of being killed or being judged.

Armed with an understanding of the law and what it allows for, we can make better decisions about how to defend ourselves against violent crime and prepare ourselves with training that is both more efficient and more effective.

Why Use Force At All?

So you’ve used force against someone who either was using force against you or who was about to do so. What then?

This is what we must bear in mind: what then? What’s the point? There are a few reasons why people might use force against an assailant:

  • To protect oneself or someone else,
  • To punish the attacker and thus discourage further wrongdoing,
  • For enjoyment,
  • To simply express anger,
  • As an impulsive act of blind panic,
  • To alleviate boredom,
  • As an act of revenge, or
  • To impress others or find feelings of self-worth or a sense of achievement in hurting someone.

Some will sound more reasonable than others to you, no doubt. Some are more understandable than others, too. Regardless of any personal ethical considerations, how do these hold up as reasonable excuses for using force against someone? Which of these can be reasonably justified in terms of necessity?

The objective in using force against another person is simple: to prevent a worse crime from taking place. In almost every situation of assault, the goal should be to use force for one purpose only: to facilitate your escape. In many situations, escape may be possible without using any force at all, or force which is unlikely to cause actual bodily harm. In situations where that is impossible, the amount and severity of the force used must then be justifiable as a reasonable level of force for that situation.

What is “Reasonable”?

Let’s begin by taking a look at what prosecutors consider in cases of self-defence:

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

  • was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
  • was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

This in itself doesn’t really help us to understand much more clearly, but it brings us to an important understanding nonetheless: the notion of reasonableness is subjective.

The CPS goes on to quote Lord Morris:

“If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken …”

This shows that there is some consideration given for the fact that it is difficult to carefully make decisions in the adrenalised state that victims of violent crime are usually in. Let us consider two hypothetical situations, however to expand on this:

Situation 1:

Goodie is sitting waiting for his train. Baddie gets off another train, drunk, and tries to hit Goodie. He hits Goodie with a glancing blow and continues to swing punches. Goodie, scared and startled, slaps Baddie hard in the face and runs away while Baddie stumbled with a ringing ear and a stinging cheek.

Situation 2:

Goodie is sitting waiting for his train. Baddie gets off another train, drunk, and tries to hit Goodie. He hits Goodie with a glancing blow and continues to swing punches. Goodie, scared and startled, slaps Baddie hard in the face before grabbing him around the neck and sinking his elbow into Baddie’s face seven times. Baddie passed out, and then Goodie punched him to make sure.

Both of these “Goodie” characters can argue that they were preventing a crime from taking place: Baddie was trying to hit them after all. As they were sitting down and the surprise came as an attack, simply leaving was not an option at that time. However, whereas in situation 1 the character took the opportunity to leave without using more force than was necessary to prevent further crime from taking place, in situation 2 he missed that opportunity while he was continuing to use more force than was required. In situation 2, the focus shifted from self-protection to retaliation.

This was a slightly silly and exaggerated example, but it illustrates the point.

To reiterate:

The objective in using force against another person is simple: to prevent a worse crime from taking place. 

In almost every situation of assault, the goal is to use force for one purpose only: to facilitate your escape. In many situations, escape may be possible without using any force at all, or force which is unlikely to cause actual bodily harm. In situations where that is impossible, the amount and severity of the force used must then be justifiable as a reasonable level of force for that situation. If it is enough force to prevent a worse crime from taking place, without being excessive in nature, then it is more likely to be considered reasonable.

Retreating

While retreat is the logical objective, as not being near the offender is (usually) the safest and easiest way to prevent violence, it is not mandatory for you to retreat in order to justify your actions in self-defence. In some situations, for example, it may be impossible to retreat without using any force at all (being held against your will, grabbed by the hair or clothes, etc). In others, your retreat could put others in danger (for example, if walking with someone who is elderly or infirm, running away would leave them in danger if they could not run with you). Consider the following from the Crown Prosecution Service’s website:

Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat when deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstances (section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110).

There are other ways that unwillingness can be demonstrated, for example through verbal and nonverbal communication. Remaining non-aggressive and attempting to calm the aggressor down, apologising for any (possibly imagined) wrongdoing, etc, are useful things to bear in mind. That said, if it is safe and possible to leave then that should always remain the clear, logical objective of any force deployment. Retreat is a greatly preferable outcome, not an absolute duty.

The CPS makes pretty clear, however, that if someone seeks out violence and instigates a violent encounter, then they are (understandably) considered the aggressor: “[…] if he started the fight, if he volunteered for it, such actions are not lawful, they are unlawful acts of violence.”

Pre-Emptive Striking

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75). (CPS)

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is another important act to bear in mind, as it offers some clarification, such as:

Section 76(3) confirms the question whether the degree of force used by the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

This is where the term “honestly held belief” comes into things. When deciding whether a use of force was reasonable, the defence of said use of force is to be considered based on the defendant’s honestly held belief that they were either under attack or that they were under imminent threat of attack.

In short, as long as the level of force remains proportionate and reasonable, someone under imminent threat of assault need not necessarily wait to be physically assaulted before they act. A (proporionate) “pre-emptive strike” may be used if it is honestly believed to be necessary.

This is not a “get out of jail free card”, however. It does not allow people to use unnecessary, excessive levels of force without repercussion as long as they say that they believed they needed to! Section 76(4) states that “the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept it was honestly held”.

The important point to remember is that this allows for the use of force to be proactive as opposed to merely reactive, in situations where its necessity can be justified.

This act we’ve discussed also goes on to discuss “householder cases” and the use of disproportionate force, so it is another useful act to be familiar with.

A Formula for Lawful Use of Force

Broadly speaking, the following areas of self-protection understanding form a methodology whereby if one stage fails or is inappropriate to the situation, the next should then be considered to avoid escalating to unjustifiable or excessive use of force. Aside from legal considerations, for the sake of safety in terms of physical, psychological and social wellbeing physical conflict should of course be avoided at all costs. This logical methodology will help to manage such risks as well as avoid the legal repercussions of handling a situation of self-protection poorly.

Stage 1 – Threat Awareness and Threat Evaluation:

‘Threat awareness’ is a state of being whereby an individual is maintaining the ability to perceive and cognitively react to an event or quality of their surroundings.

Through threat awareness, understand the situation to the best of your ability. Through threat avoidance, decide whether you can escape without combat. Simply put, if you can see a potential situation beginning to escalate early enough, you can simply leave. Threat evaluation should be a theoretically informed approach, meaning that it stems from an understanding of the area you’re in, the nature of violent crime, etc. Do some research and educate yourself if you can. That said, never ignore your gut feeling. If a situation doesn’t feel right, leave.

Stage 2 – Threat Avoidance:

This can either be passive avoidance (not going to areas where you know bad things are likely to happen) or active avoidance (walking or running away). If you remove yourself from the situation, you’ve prevented the crime from taking place without using force.

Stage 3 – Communication:

If the above fails or is not viable, then communication may be a way to end the situation without violence. This communication, verbal and nonverbal, could be placatative, deceptive, distracting or intimidating depending on the situation and what it calls for at that moment. If immediate escape or avoidance is not viable, employ communicative strategies to effect one.

Stage 4 – Use of Force:

If the above three stages have all failed or were not viable, then force may be necessary to effect your escape. This force, as discussed above, must be both necessary and reasonable in order to be considered legally justifiable.

The Last Word

This article is not intended for legal advice and it has not been written by an expert in law. You should not take legal advice from anyone who is not qualified to give it, and I (Josh Nixon, the writer) am just a layperson who is interested in the topic as a self-protection practitioner and instructor. This article is merely an attempt to clarify the often rather vague notion that is “reasonable force” and the justification of the use of force generally, as a basic starting point for interested parties to begin their own research and learning from. The various topics such as threat awareness, evaluation and avoidance, etc will be expanded upon separately in further writing. If nothing else, this article is a reminder to all those who practise self-protection, martial arts or any related disciplines that an awareness of and respect for the law simply has to be an intrinsic part of your training mentality and methodology, or you are doing yourself a grave disservice. The nature of this subject is such that whether you are knowledgeable about it or ignorant of it, your responsibility remains the same. If excessive or unnecessary force is used and it cannot be justified, both the knowledgeable self-protectionist and the uneducated person are equally and inescapably responsible for their actions. The understanding of the law as outlined here cannot be used as an excuse to use force when you might have been able to avoid it, and it cannot be used as an excuse to use excessive levels of unreasonable force either. It is to be used, rather, to ensure a better-informed approach to your training so that no use of force is trained without consideration of not just how it should be done, but when and (perhaps most importantly) why.

For a more in-depth and excellent reference book on this topic, I recommend Understanding Reasonable Force by Mark Dawes. It is essentially a better and more in-depth look at exactly what this article has discussed. At the time of writing, it is by far the best book on the topic I have read so far. Full details of the book can be found on our Recommended Reading page.

I’ve done a fair amount of reading and have spoken about this topic with some knowledgeable people, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I am right so I encourage anyone reading this to take it merely as a starting point for their own research into the topic. In the same breath, if anything here is unclear, confusing, missing the point or flat-out incorrect please inform me and I will edit it immediately. As my research continues and my learning continues, I may well edit this to reflect new understanding or to incorporate new sources. For this reason, I will include a changelog here of when this article is edited:

Last edited on 29.08.2016: clarification of statute law, as opposed to “civil law”. Thanks to Peter Consterdine from the British Combat Association for this feedback.
Published on 21.08.2016.

Training Notes – Endon – 20.03.2015

IMG_20150217_205603 - CopyOn our Facebook page today I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the eclipse this morning, saying that they’re a portent of epic things to come.

I wasn’t wrong. This week’s session was phenomenal.

A warm welcome to another new member who is already experienced in Filipino martial arts, JKD, BJJ and KFM. We love it when people come who are already experienced martial artists, as they always have something new and fresh to bring to the table. By the same token, it was great to have our friendly neighbourhood Samurai with us again showing off some incredible Jujutsu skills on the ground!

This week, we’d been double-booked by our new venue. As there was an annual event going on in the hall, we were told we couldn’t train. This, of course, is not how we roll so I asked if we could use the small back room instead. The result was a very enjoyable shake-up to how we normally train!

The funny thing is, I’d planned a session focussed on close-quarters stuff!

To start, we warmed up with some partner work:

  • Pushes and strikes for relaxed movement and footwork.
  • Positioning for control: controlling a partner’s arm and following up with strikes and takedowns.
    • Recap: forwards and backwards fall absorption and efficient takedowns by manipulating the spine that we looked at last week.

Then we got onto some more in-depth partner work in close quarters:

  • Person A grabs Person B’s shirt and punches him in the face. Classic angry man outside the chippie style.
    • Person B uses positioning, footwork and parrying or blocking (depending on angle) to move IN to the attacker and gain control of their posture.
    • Person B takes Person A to the floor.
    • Progression 1: Person B then tries to kick and stamp on their partner, who climbs up them (as we did the other week) in order to prevent this rather unpleasant treatment and maintain control in the process.
    • Progression 2: Person A takes Person B down. Person B climbs up Person A and takes him down. Continuous with quick changes of partners at unexpected moments!

Of course, as always we respect the reiterate the Force Continuum: we’re using the stamping and kicking here as a tool to explore how to deal with that kind of assault, not necessarily as a recommended followup once you’ve taken an attacker down!

Padwork in close quarters (ranges 2 and 3):

  • Hook punches, palm strikes and hammer fists starting with the striking hand on one pad, enforcing a short distance within which you can accelerate.
    • Relaxed movement and footwork to generate power.
  • Short elbow strikes from a reference point:
    • From the fence, front hand is the reference point.
    • Collapse the arm and step forward quickly, striking with the elbow.
  • Proactive targeting: Don’t just wait for a target to present itself! Make your own opportunities. Grab the pad and move it to where you want it. Grab the head and turn the face away, etc.

Don’t be reactive. Be proactive.

Edged weapons:

  • A common modus operandi for stabbings: grab and stab (linked to the previous grab and punch).
  • Using this as a framework (lead hand grab, frenzied stabbing with the rear hand towards anywhere in the torso), we explored how to increase our chances of surviving.
    • Drill 1: knife acclimatisation. 
      • Moving parts of the body away from the blade in order to limit the chance and seriousness of injury.
      • Awareness of which parts of the body to be particularly wary of protecting.
      • Awareness of where the knife is and what it’s doing.
    • Drill 2: grab and stab, grip and control development.
      • Person A grabs Person B as before and stabs towards the stomach with their rear hand.
      • Person B responds the moment he’s grabbed – immediately – and moves his torso away while intercepting the other arm. It could be a stab or a punch, or he could be reaching for a gun, or anything – right now, it doesn’t matter. Intercept that arm.
      • The stab comes, but is parried by that intercepting arm. Person B grabs onto the attacking arm and controls it close to their chest using both hands. The knife is pointing away from them and the arm is secure.
        •  …or is it? Person A tests the grip by violently shaking their arm and trying to free it. Maximum force, absolute ferocity.
          •  With a high COM (Centre of Mass), you can be moved around easily. The further you are from their shoulder, the easier you are to ‘rag around’ and take off-balance. It takes great footwork to keep up with this. Drop your COM a little with a slight bend in your knees (keep good posture though) and sink yourself in close to the attacker’s shoulder and you can resist their efforts much more efficiently.
            • Today’s (O_o) face goes to Dave for full-on picking me up in the air in the process of demonstrating this!
        • If you don’t get stabbed and cut up, you secured the arm. If not, you didn’t!
    • Drill 3: grab and stab, followup from control.
      • Once we established how to achieve and maintain control with a non-compliant partner ragging you around, we looked at what to do from there.
        • Striking options: quickly striking when opportunities are present and returning to controlling the weapon.
          • Striking without letting go: using the shoulders, head and feet to strike while keeping full control of the armed arm (pun intended).
        • Takedowns: risky but potentially viable. Take their balance by manipulating the spine.
        • Disarming: keep it simple and stupid. Smash their arm until they let go, or keep two-handed control of the arm and smash the back of the hand into a wall if there’s one there.
          • If you end up on the floor, smash the hand into the floor. You can also pin the arm using your leg while you do what you need to.
      • Again, the Force Continuum has to be reiterated. Don’t just default to grabbing the knife and carving your name into their chest! If you can avoid using excessive levels of force, and this is entirely dependent on the situation and all its infinite variables, then you should.
    • Drill 4: exploring parrying and striking simultaneously.
      • Person A stabs Person B as before, but wears a focus mitt so Person B can strike while simultaneously dealing with the blade and going for the control, etc. A useful little drill.

To finish, we did some basic breathwork drills (which we’ll return to next week…) and tension & relaxation work, along with percussive massage.

This week’s session was incredible. An awesome turnout, another new member and the return of recent new members as well as our seasoned warriors. The atmosphere was fantastic, the skill and effort I saw in everyone was unbelievable, and it was incredibly enjoyable to train with you all as it always is.

See you next week! We’re back in the usual hall from next week onwards, though that room is always there if we want it…

-Josh Nixon

All the details of this class are on the Public Classes page up at the top. Your first session is FREE and all are welcome to come along and take part. Every session is beginner-friendly.

The Evolutionary Self-Protection ‘No-Touch Knockout’ Open Invitation

The Evolutionary Self-Protection

‘No-Touch Knockout’

Open Invitation

Preamble:

The ESP is based on no principle more important and pervasive than that of open and honest questioning. Without it, evolution cannot occur as learning will inevitably always be guided away from honest progression towards obscurity, inefficacy and invalidity.

My name is Josh Nixon, and I am the founding instructor of my methods, which I call ‘Evolutionary Self-Protection’. It is not perfect, will never be and will continually try to be. It is only through open and honest questioning that this continually evolutionary approach can truly be adopted, and so I have been led to this current moment and this message I am writing in it.

It has come to my attention that many instructors of different systems from around the world are teaching methods of causing knockouts or similar loss-of-consciousness effects without physically touching the target individual. These kinds of teachings often fall under levels of ridicule perhaps unsurpassed in the martial arts community. The general consensus seems to be polarised between two parties; one saying that it is rubbish (to put it milder than most) and that these instructors are lying to themselves and everyone else, and one saying that it’s true and above question.

I am, if nothing else, a questioner. I do not merely question the validity and efficacy of these methods, but I question those who default to ridiculing too. I also question myself and my methods. As such, I am always looking to learn from those who know things that I don’t.

If these ‘no-touch knockouts’ are true and valid methods for self-protection, then they would completely revolutionise the entirety of the current paradigm of self-protective methods, or at least certainly the ones I teach. It could empower many individuals to protect themselves who struggle with physical methods due to health or age. In fact, such ability could potentially render everything else taught in self-protection methods such as mine utterly obsolete.

This is not a challenge, a joke, an attempt to poke fun or anything of the sort. It is a genuine attempt to understand something that I currently don’t and strive for true progress in the field of self-protection through open and honest informal questioning and testing.

The Invitation:

I, Josh Nixon, would like to hereby invite anyone claiming the ability or knowledge of being able to induce a loss of consciousness in a human being without touching them to a fair, honest and open demonstration. The subject will be myself.

I would very much like anyone with this ability to help me find out whether or not it does exist. Following are the rules I would like to attach for such a demonstration:

Terminology:

‘Subject’ – the participant allowing the demonstrator to perform a no-touch knockout on them.

‘Demonstrator’ – the participant demonstrating the ability to perform a no-touch knockout on the subject.

The Rules:

  • No physical contact is to be made between the participants:
    • By ‘physical contact’ it is meant that no molecular structures under the direct control of one participant may touch those of another during the demonstration. This includes, but is not limited to:
      • Bodily touching: striking, manipulation of biomechanical weaknesses (often referred to as ‘pressure points’), striking with clothing or other objects, thrown objects…
  • No technological aids may be used to induce effects on the subject:
    • By ‘technological aid’ we mean manufactured devices, overt or concealed, however powered. These are prohibited and could have a negative effect on the subject. This includes, but is not limited to:
      • Emitters of electricity (Tasers, static charges, etc), projectile-launching devices, emitters of electromagnetic frequencies (such as light, heat, microwaves, x-rays, etc)…
  • No substances that could be potentially damaging to the subject’s health are to have any part in the demonstration.
    • By ‘substances’, we mean molecular chemical compounds. This includes, but is not limited to:
      • Gases, liquids, powdered solids, anything ingested through inhalation, anything ingested through the digestive system, anything ingested through the bloodstream, anything ingested through a mucous membrane…
  • The event must be open to be watched by spectators.
  • Those participating in the event must consent to being filmed for documentation purposes.
    • Anyone participating in the event can request a copy of footage, in which case all reasonable measures must be taken to comply with such a request.
  • The subject is allowed to organise various health and safety measures. This includes, but is not limited to:
    • A crash mat or similar soft surface to minimise risk of injury from falling in the event of loss of consciousness.
    • Attendant/s to guide the subject to the ground/to the safety surface in the event of loss of consciousness.
    • First aid supplies and those with medical knowledge to assist in the event of loss of consciousness.
    • Attendant/s to maintain the subject’s personal security.
  • The subject’s position, state and activities prior to the demonstration of no-touch knockout ability is his/her choice, and all participation is done of their own free will. Any compliance with the requests of the demonstrator is of the subject’s free choice.
    • Compliance with any requests of the demonstrator may override any rule, but must be announced to all present beforehand.

Get In Touch!

If you would like to demonstrate the ability to perform a no-touch knockout, simply have a go, watch such an event, try an idea you’ve had for inducing such an effect or prove yourself in a documented event with evidence you can post online or do whatever you want with, I’d love to hear from you!

This event can happen anywhere (within reason) and I will do everything I can to organise a venue and time that is convenient for both of us.

If you’re interested and would like to organise an event or just know more about it all, get in touch via any of the following:

Email:                                                   evolutionaryselfprotection@gmail.com
Facebook Page:                                facebook.com/EvolutionarySelfProtection
Facebook Group:                             facebook.com/groups/EvolutionarySelfProtection
Twitter:                                                twitter.com/EvolutionarySP
Google+:             search for              ‘Evolutionary Self-Protection’
LinkedIn:                                             uk.linkedin.com/in/JoshSchamaelNixon
YouTube:                                             youtube.com/user/EvolutionarySP
Website/Blog:                                   evolutionaryselfprotection.com

I hope to hear from you soon!

Yours with respect,

Josh Nixon

Founding Instructor, Evolutionary Self-Protection

P.S. It has come to my attention that similar claims of being able to knock people over, push, pull or otherwise move a person around without touching them, from a distance (not relying merely on inducing the flinch response) are numerous, and so this invitation is also extended to those with any such abilities or skills.

Assault in Tunstall – Police Looking for Witnesses

Just spreading the word to help out with this one:

Officers were called to Furlong Road at around 10.30pm on Friday 30 September following a report of a fight.

A 15-year-old boy had sustained a head injury and was taken to the University Hospital of North Staffordshire for treatment. He was discharged a short time later.

A 45-year old man suffered a broken jaw and was taken to Aintree Hospital in Liverpool for specialist treatment. He was discharged yesterday, Sunday 2 October. He has been arrested in connection with the incident and has been bailed, pending further inquiries, to a date later this month.

Police are looking for witnesses, so if anyone noticed anything around that area on the day then please get in touch with them:

Anyone with information is urged to contact DC Louise Giles at Staffordshire Police on 0300 123 4455 quoting incident number 955 of September 30 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Issued: 03/10/2011           Contact name: DC Louise Giles           Contact number: 0300 123 4455
Crime reference number: 955 of 30/09/2011

The article, found at http://www.staffordshire.police.uk/news/latest_appeals/111003_ic_assault_tunstall/?view=Standard&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed says that the area was busy due to people being out enjoying the hot weather, so there should be at least one person who knows something!

Don’t forget that the weather should be a consideration in your self-evaluation of your own personal security – do you think about it? Join the discussion on the CSPS forums at http://cspsonline.proboards.com for more on this.

%d bloggers like this: