A 47-year-old woman has been charged with four counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one count of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, after a stabbing incident in central London left four men injured.

Stella Gollovena, of no fixed address, was due to appear at Highbury magistrates' court on Thursday 6 August 2026 to face the charges, which were announced the same day by the Metropolitan Police (The Guardian).

The incident began on Wednesday 5 August 2026 at approximately 12.30pm, when Metropolitan Police officers were called to Endell Street in Covent Garden after four men were found with stab wounds. The victims, aged 34, 39, 42, and 56, were taken to hospital with injuries assessed as neither life-threatening nor life-changing. All four have since been discharged.

London's air ambulance landed at Trafalgar Square in response to the incident, but paramedics ultimately treated the four men at the scene before they were transported to hospital by road. The dispatch of the air ambulance to a major central London location reflects the initial severity assessment that emergency responders applied to the report of multiple stabbing victims in a densely populated area.

Gollovena was arrested at the scene and taken into custody. Police later recovered scissors in connection with the incident (NBC Montana). Authorities described the stabbing as a mental health incident, a characterisation that shaped both the initial police response and the framing of the charges that followed.

The progression from arrest to formal charges saw the allegations sharpen significantly. On 5 August, Gollovena was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and assault (The Guardian). By the following day, those suspicions had been elevated to four counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm — a serious offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 — alongside the weapons charge under section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The charge of wounding with intent requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant caused a wound and did so with specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm (a legal term for really serious physical injury). The distinction between this and lesser assault charges matters a great deal. It places the case in the upper tier of violent crime sentencing, meaning that if convicted, Gollovena would face a starting point under sentencing guidelines that reflects the deliberate infliction of serious injury rather than recklessness alone.

The broader context here is the intersection of violent crime and mental health crisis response in central London. The police characterisation of the incident as a mental health episode rather than a targeted or indiscriminate attack distinguishes it from the pattern of knife crime that has dominated public discourse around London policing. That framing carries operational and legal implications: it informs how the Crown Prosecution Service — the body responsible for bringing criminal charges in England and Wales — will approach charging decisions, how defence counsel may build a mitigation strategy around diminished responsibility (a legal defence arguing the defendant's mental state reduced their culpability), and how the court may consider psychiatric evaluation during proceedings.

The location adds another dimension. Endell Street sits in the heart of Covent Garden, an area of sustained high foot traffic from tourists, theatre-goers, and office workers. A midday stabbing in such a setting, involving four adult male victims spanning a 22-year age range, would have triggered immediate public-safety concern. The rapid discharge of all four from hospital, however, indicates that the physical injuries, while sufficient to meet the legal threshold for grievous bodily harm charges, were contained in medical terms.

Gollovena's listing as having no fixed address introduces potential complications for bail considerations and for any pre-sentence report preparation, should the case progress to conviction. Magistrates facing a defendant of no fixed abode charged with serious violent offences typically weigh remand decisions heavily in favour of custody, particularly where the alleged weapon was recovered at the scene.

The case now moves into the standard magistrates' court committal process. Given the severity of the section 18 charges, the matter is likely to be sent to the Crown Court — which handles more serious criminal trials — for trial or sentencing, as magistrates' sentencing powers are capped well below the maximum available for wounding with intent.