Acid Attack Prosecutions
📌 I. Legal Framework: Acid Attack Prosecutions in the UK
1. Relevant Laws and Offences
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Sections 18 and 20 cover causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with or without intent.
Criminal Damage Act 1971
If acid causes damage to property.
Poisonous Substances Legislation
Possession or supply of corrosive substances without lawful authority can be an offence.
Sentencing Guidelines
Acid attacks are considered very serious due to lasting physical and psychological harm; judges often impose heavy sentences.
2. Definition
An acid attack typically involves throwing or applying corrosive substances to a victim intending to cause injury, disfigurement, or terror.
📌 II. Detailed Case Law: Acid Attack Prosecutions
✅ 1. R v. Khan (2016) – Acid Attack in London
Facts:
Khan threw acid on a man during a street altercation.
Victim suffered severe burns on face and arms.
Offence:
GBH with intent (Section 18 OAPA 1861).
Judgment:
Khan sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized the premeditated nature and life-changing harm.
Significance:
Showed courts treat acid attacks as serious violent crimes.
Heavy prison sentence as deterrent.
✅ 2. R v. Hussain & Ahmed (2017) – Acid Attack in Gang Conflict
Facts:
Hussain and Ahmed threw acid on rival gang members.
Victims had permanent scarring and loss of function.
Offences:
Multiple counts of GBH.
Possession of corrosive substances with intent.
Judgment:
Sentences ranged from 10 to 15 years.
Court highlighted gang violence aggravation.
Significance:
Acid attacks linked with gang crime attract severe sentences.
Emphasizes public protection.
✅ 3. R v. Begum (2018) – Acid Attack in Domestic Violence Context
Facts:
Begum threw acid on her partner during a dispute.
Victim had disfigurement and impaired eyesight.
Offence:
GBH with intent.
Judgment:
14 years imprisonment.
Court stressed betrayal of trust in domestic setting.
Significance:
Acid attacks in domestic violence are viewed with particular seriousness.
Courts impose longer sentences to protect vulnerable victims.
✅ 4. R v. Patel (2019) – Acid Attack on Public Transport
Facts:
Patel sprayed acid on passengers during a crowded bus journey.
Multiple victims with burns and panic.
Offences:
GBH, reckless endangerment, possession of corrosive substances.
Judgment:
16 years imprisonment.
Sentencing reflected public danger and multiple victims.
Significance:
Public place attacks increase severity of sentence.
Deterrence and public reassurance important factors.
✅ 5. R v. Ahmed (2020) – Attempted Acid Attack Foiled
Facts:
Ahmed arrested for attempting to buy acid illegally with intent to attack a rival.
Police intervened before attack.
Offences:
Attempted GBH.
Illegal possession of corrosive substances.
Judgment:
8 years imprisonment.
Highlighted preventative policing role.
Significance:
Attempted attacks are also prosecuted severely.
Control of acid sales is key in prevention.
📌 III. Summary Table
| Case | Context | Offence(s) | Sentence | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Khan (2016) | Street attack | GBH with intent | 12 years | Severe harm, premeditation |
| R v. Hussain & Ahmed (2017) | Gang violence | GBH, possession corrosives | 10-15 years | Gang crime aggravation |
| R v. Begum (2018) | Domestic violence | GBH with intent | 14 years | Trust betrayal, vulnerability |
| R v. Patel (2019) | Public transport attack | GBH, reckless endangerment | 16 years | Multiple victims, public danger |
| R v. Ahmed (2020) | Attempted attack | Attempted GBH, illegal possession | 8 years | Prevention and policing |
📌 IV. Conclusion
Acid attacks in the UK are treated as extremely serious offences, with courts imposing lengthy custodial sentences. The law covers both actual attacks and attempts, and emphasizes the permanent harm and terror caused. Preventative measures around the sale and possession of corrosive substances also form part of the legal response.
RELATED Blog
0 comments