Is GBH okay depending on the circumstances? He's a thug. Sometimes thugs have charm.

He seemed the perfect case of arrested development as he had the emotional self control of a 13 year old.

Yes it can be. in certain circumstances, as I said I'm not aware of all the facts are you?

In what circumstances is GBH okay? If it was self defence he wouldn't have been convicted. No one is aware of all the facts of any case unless they are the judge, jury or one of the lawyers. But when someone is convicted, I think it's safe to believe he committed the offence.

Well for instance James Martin the Norfolk farmer was tried for murder, now in many peoples eyes what he did was justified and seeing how he only served a small part of his sentence, common sense saw through in the end.

Or I'll give a fictional example. Your picking your kids up from primary school, you see a guy hanging around talking to the kids, handing out sweets or whatever. You approach him and a scuffle breaks out. Now you know what the guy was up too, but through lack of any evidence against him, your arrested and charged.

There's been lots of cases where people have gone too far in the name of self defence, doesn't mean their wrong, just in the eyes of the law, they were. etc

You can't just commit GBH because someone is giving sweets to children! The potential paedo example is always given as it really stirs people's outrage. But if we want a civil law abiding society, we can't go around beating people up just because we suspect them to be paedophiles! There have been cases when innocent people have been attacked by exactly this type of vigilante action.

It has been reported that James attacked one man in a bar and bit another man's ear at another location. Neither sounds like his was trying to protect his property or children.

Look we obviously have different views, which I appreciate, but this thread isn't the place to discuss the law. All I said was he came across very well on YF. Now I don't and you don't (I assume) know all the details on his past, so there's little point continuing this discussion.

Do you think the court got it wrong, or something?

Do you think it might have been some rare case where GBH is somehow ok despite being found to be criminal by a court that was aware of the relevant facts?

May I just add, that as a retired Police Law Trainer, the law states that a person is allowed to use 'reasonable and proportionate' force in acts of self defence. However, as always the words 'reasonable and proportionate' are open to interpretation and misinterpretation.
I should add that GBH (grievous bodily harm) is a huge step up the category of crime. Many acts involving fighting between two or more people are often classified as ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) or even the oft used Common Assault.
The hinge word here is Grievous. This is one of those offences that is commonly shortened. The correct terminology is GBH with Intent. In other words the felon decided to commit this offence as a premeditated act and would usually have to result in the victim suffering serious bodily harm. The CPS classify this as a repeated or planned attack which is often premeditated.
To use GBH as a defence in law would be very difficult as the 'harm' has to be reasonable and proportionate.
Any questions relating to this board's thoughts about what James may or may not have done can only be speculation unless someone is in possession of the full Court proceedings.
For the record the Norfolk farmer was NOT James Martin. It was Tony Martin