OCR A-Level Law AO3s

assault: evaluation point 1 (CLD)

common law definition - parliament never defined it, judges not respecting sovereignty as only elected bodies should be making laws. should be defined in an act as the public think it involves touching

assault: evaluation point 2 (LE)

the law is evolving - judges have flexibility to amend the law which allows them to modify and expand meanings to fit with modern society e.g silent phone calls.

smith = sensible decision and expanded immediate to imminent - protects victims of abuse

assault: evaluation point 3 (S)

sentence is 6months, same as battery!! unfair on d as they haven’t touched the victim like they have with battery which is more serious. illogical but rare to be sentenced to this

assault: evaluation point 4 (RP)

2015 reform proposal - suggested changing assault to threatened assault which makes it clear that assault isn’t physical.

battery: evaluation point 1 (SD)

no statutory definition - not set out in an act so judges can be flexible as society develops.

more democratic to have an act though as parliament are sovereign.

lack of act means it can be unclear what was a battery and what was ABH

battery: evaluation point 2 (W)

wide meaning - any amount of touching, but courts have been sensible with everyday batteries (floodgates).

definition have expanded with fagan and K - development is important but strays from original definition

battery: evaluation point 3 (RP)

2015 reform proposal - changing to physical assault, would make the separation between assault and battery clearer

battery: evaluation point 4 (S)

sentence- 6 months - same as assault but is arguably more serious as there’s physical contact. 6 months may be a long time for a minimal battery, but in reality, few people are convicted

ABH: evaluation point 1 (S)

sentence - big jump from 6 months to 5 years - unfair on d as often a fine line between a battery and ABH, but not many got sentenced to this

same sentence as S20 GBH - illogical? GBH is more serious

ABH: evaluation point 2 (MR)

men’s rea - unfair on d to be convicted based on their men’s rea for the assault or the battery and not the ABH. may not have intended or foreseen risk of ABH, but convicted anyway.

does provide justice for v though as they are protected

ABH: evaluation point 3 (LE)

law is evolving: OAPA 1861 is outdated so needs to be modernised with society - mental harm! judges took on the role of amending law as it would take too long to wait for parliament. when the act was made, not much was known about mental harm

ABH: evaluation point 4 (RP)

2015 reform proposal - suggested changing ABH to ‘d intentionally or recklessly causes v injury’ - would clarify the law as would include mental harm.

more certainty having a statute to define it and not miller

S20 GBH: evaluation point 1 (O)

law is outdated - 1861 uses old fashioned words like maliciously and grievous, it’s in need of reform as biological and mental harm did not used to be recognised.

inconsistency in act - S20 uses inflicting, S18 uses causing

S20 GBH: evaluation point 2 (S)

sentence - sentence is same as ABH, but this is illogical as doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the crime. giving someone HIV is a lifelong condition and v doesn’t get justice is d is sentenced to 5 years.

reform stated 7 years, more proportionate, but perhaps 10 would be better

S20 GBH: evaluation point 3 (MR)

mens rea - unfair that d can be convicted for intended some harm when the AR is serious harm (don’t match)

protects victims as dangerous people are punished

may act as a deterrent

S20 GBH: evaluation point 4 (L)

law evolving - judges filled in gaps to make sure law is modernised e.g mental/biological harm. may mean judges have strayed into law making, but would be waiting for parliament for ages

S20 GBH: evaluation point 5 (RP)

2015 reform proposal - calling it “reckless serious injury” - injury includes mental harm.

clearly separates mens rea - no intention

sentence 7 years

S18 GBH: evaluation point 1 (O)

outdated - uses old fashioned words like grievous, in need of reform as when it was made, mental and biological harm weren’t recognised

inconsistency as S20 uses inflicting and S18 uses causing

S18 GBH: evaluation point 2 (S)

sentencing - jump is big from 5 years to life, does reflect the severity of the crime as d intended to cause serious harm

easier to prove than attempted murder where MR is intent to kill

acts as a deterrent and protects public

S18 GBH: evaluation point 3 (W)

wording - why is this causing but S20 is inflicting? creates uncertainty and inconsistency

wounding could be minor but are charged for GBH

bodily, biological (expanded law, good!)

grievous - old fashioned

S18 GBH: evaluation point 4 (RP)

2015 reform proposal - changing it to “intentionally causing serious injury” - makes mens rea clearer