Non fatal offences evaluation

Confusion between assault and battery + reform for it

S.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 does not make it clear that Assault and Battery are two distinct offences and then creates confusion by referring to both as “Common Assault”. The terms “Assault” and “Battery” are not defined – we rely on Common Law for their meaning. The decisions of judges also seem at odds with those of lay people as majority of lay people would think “assault” meant a physical attack and not just a threat; while most people would think “battery” meant a severe beating and not just any sort of touching. Law Commission 2015 report update confusing language “Assault” and “Battery” could be re-named as “Threatened Assault” and “Physical Assault” respectively.

S.47 point of misleading + reform

“Assault” is misleading as battery can also (and usually does) form the basis of a s.47 offence. “Occasioning” is an old-fashioned word for “causing”. This creates a sense of confusion is false meaning in the eyes of lay people and many may think it is for assault only but battery is also included.““Actual bodily harm” is not defined in the OAP Act 1861 and the statute leaves the MR of s.47 unclear. Both have had to be defined by Judges through case law. Law Commission 2015 The phrases “Actual Bodily Harm” and “Grievous Bodily Harm” could be dropped in favour of “injury” and “serious injury”.The verb “causes” should be used consistently across all offences.

S.47 Correspondence of AR and MR

The AR and MR of s.47 do not correspond, i.e. there is no MR required in relation to the injury. This means that D is guilty for the outcome of his or her actions, rather than what they intend or foresee. Savage provides a useful illustration of this point. This is unfair because it goes against the principle of criminal law that people should only be responsible for what they foresee. However, constructive intent forces people to take responsibility for their conduct, ensuring that victims get justice but then again in the eyes of a criminal a sudden minor act which would normally have 6 months imprisonment turns into 5 years. Law Commission 2015 “new s.47” should require D to intend or foresee the risk of injury – a fairer way of assessing D’s blame.

S.20 wording (confusion and misleading )

The phrase “Grievous Bodily Harm” is an old fashioned term and the courts rely on case law for a definition. Including of a “wound” theoretically includes minor injuries e.g eisenhower Serious wounds could simply be treated as GBH. Further confusion with ‘maliciously ‘ suggests evil intent but in common law it means intention or recklessness as to some harm. Inflict means cause but ordinary people would not know this. Law Comission 2015 D must be reckless about the risk of serious injury: wounding is only included if it is a serious injury

AR + MR correspondence +sentence s.20

The AR and MR do not correspond – D need not foresee serious injury, just some harm. “Constructive intent” means D is guilty for the outcome of their actions, rather than what they intend or foresee. The sentence is the same as s.47 even though D has caused a much more severe injury. Law Commission 2015 make the sentence max 7 yrs and s.18 still life m+ Recklessly causing serious injury

S.18 unbalanced MR

Some criticisms as s.20 overlap with 18 . Ds who wound or cause GBH while trying to resist arrest are charged with the same crime as those who set out to cause serious injury. Where D is trying to resist arrest, he or she need only foresee the risk of causing some harm (Morrison 1989). Arguably, the two MR are unbalanced. Law Commission 2015new proposed offence as Intentionally causing serious injury and wounding is onlyincluded if it is a serious injury