Non-fatal Offences?

 this, the hierarchy of the offences in terms of seriousness can also be severely criticized. This is because firstly while assault and battery can only be punished with a maximum sentence of ‘six months imprisonment’, ABH s47 can be punished by ‘five years’. This is ridiculous as Michael Allen advocates.  The only difference between the aforementioned offences is that, for s47 ABH must be caused, yet ABH can mean as little as causing discomfort as seen in the case of Miller 1954. Hence it is highly anomalous that the difference in harm which is caused need only to be slight. Thus when compared to the common assaults, it seems rather similar, does it not? Furthermore s47 has not yet been really explained as in certain cases such as Chan-fook, Miller etc it just merely states what could amount to ABH but not how it could amount to ABH. This makes the law unclear as the judiciary does not know what they are looking for. Consequently s20 is defined as a more serious offence than s47; nevertheless they carry the same maximum penalty of five years, this is absurd, is it not? Therefore it could be argued that the boundary between assault, battery and ABH and s47 to s20 is too vague and again people may be treated unfairly. It is unjust that a person who causes a small cut can be charged with a more serious offence of s20 instead of s47. Hence the law on non fatal offences is not satisfactory and is seriously over due to be reformed.

         To further this, the only significant difference between s.20 and s.18 is arguably a slightly more serious mens rea, but this time the sentence leaps from five years to life imprisonment.  CMV.Clarkson and  HM.Keating argue that ‘both section 18 and 20 cover the same harm’ and ask the question of ‘can the difference in their maximum penalties be justified exclusively in terms of their differing mens rea requirements?’ one believes that, it does justify the requirements but to a certain extent. For example if only the offenders actually intend their actions; otherwise it will cause injustice, consequently not justifying the requirements. Another example is that s20 and 18 have the same interpretation. In Ireland and Burstow Lord Steyn said that the word cause in s18 and inflict in s20 were not synonymous, but it is difficult to see how they differ in practice and both also refer to the need of causation.

According to CMV.Clarkson and HM.Keating it is clear that both the substances of these offences and their scale of punishments must be restructured in order to represent a true hierarchy of seriousness. Nevertheless failure to do this ‘might either confuse moral judgments or bring the law into disrepute or both’ as Hart advocates in Law, Liberty and Morality. Further, ‘principles of justice or fairness between different offenders require morally distinguishable offences to be treated differently and morally similar to offences to be treated alike’. Thus one could argue that the current law is not satisfactory, this is because it causes injustice and can become legally and morally wrong.

        In conclusion the current law on non fatal offences is not satisfactory and is in the need of reform. Thus the Law Commission and the Criminal Law Revision Committee have put forward various reforms, which could improve the current law legally as well as morally. For example the first aspect which will be addressed is that of the language used, serious would be used instead of grievous and words such as maliciously, wounding etc will be avoided altogether. This would enable more people to understand the current law and maybe might reduce the crime levels, as they might know what there actions could amount to. Under the Bill the structure has been severely revised. For example s.18 is replaced by ‘intentionally causing serious injury’ which will contain maxima of life, whereas s20 by ‘recklessly causing injury’ will contain maxima of 5 years. Additionally s47 will be by ‘intention and or recklessness and will have a maximum of 2 years.  By improving the structure and simplifying would make life a great deal better. This is because the current structure is too complicated. Nevertheless the term assault will still be used but for two separate offences of assault and battery. The aforementioned reforms should make the law clearer and classifying an offence should be less complicated. However one aspect which also should be considered is the idea of codification, joining all the offences and acts together as currently they are all disjointed.  A new enactment should be created and established and this would contain everything associated with non fatal offences. It would fundamentally make the law easy, as all the aspects would be in one place.