How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person?

Authors Avatar

How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person? (25)

Non-fatal offences against the person are assault, battery, assault or battery occasioning actually bodily harm, malicious wounding and GBH with intent. The first two offences are defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, with the remainder being found in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. There is a variety of sentences available ranging from imprisonment for 6 months to a life sentence for the most serious offence of GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861).

Some would argue that the OAPA 1861 is a very badly drafted piece of legislation, which is merely a consolidation of a number of old offences being grouped together. Because of this, there have been many appeals against convictions regarding this act.

There is still no clear statutory definition of assault and battery, while the definitions of the more serious offences are contained in act over 100 years old, leading some to think that they are outdated. Much of the vocabulary in the Act is misleading, with the would “maliciously” having two definitions, one for the s.18 offence, and another for the s.20. This has led the Joint Charging Standard to clarify the issue of what charge to bring for different levels of injury, although even that is wrong; any injury which causes blood to flow could be charged as wounding, even a grazed knee. This, as should be obvious, is a major injustice, seeing as a grazed knee is the least serious of wounds which could be sustained, yet if I were to push someone and they grazed their knee, I could face the same sentence and criminal trial as someone who recklessly runs towards someone with a pair of scissors, fails to stop and ends up stabbing them in their stomach, which could cause a substantially larger problem for the victim.

Join now!

Another linguistic criticism lies in the use of “inflict” in s.20 and “cause” in s.18. It is argued that the word inflict requires a battery for the full offence to take place, and this was the central issue in Rv Burstow, which was decided by the House of Lords where the Court of Appeal had certified the question: “Whether an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 can be committed where no physical violence is applied directly or indirectly”. Here it was argued that it is inherent in the word “inflict” that there must be a some application ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

This is a widely drafted question, and a number of approaches can be taken. The author could do more to structure the essay, and in places the grammar is poor. The conclusion is a little rushed, and there is no discussion of the cases of R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534, R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576 and Smith v Chief Constable of Woking [1983] 76 Cr App R 234. 3 stars.