AO3 Bomb, all evaluation needed for criminal law

Question 1

What could evaluation be asked on in Criminal Law?

Answer 1

-OAPA
-General Defences

Question 2

What could evaluations be asked on in OAPA?

Answer 2

-OAPA 1861
-S47 OAPA 1861
-S20 and S18 OAPA

Question 3

What could evaluations be asked on in General Defences?

Answer 3

-Intoxication
-Consent
-Self-Defence

Question 4

How are marks distributed for an evaluation question?

Answer 4

8 marks ao1 12 marks ao3

Question 5

What should Ao1 be for an evaluation?

Answer 5

Fairly small… Don’t include all elements just because there is no scenario, most of the writing should be evaluations

Question 6

What is essential and should be remembered?

Answer 6

-Points link to the question
-A good conclusion linked to the q

Question 7

Explain potential evaluations for the OAPA 1861 in general

Answer 7

-Out of date
-Inconsistency between the offences
-Complex, out of date language
-Lots of judicial creativity in this area
-No clear hierarchy of offences
-Assault and Battery outside OAPA

Question 8

Why is there massive need for reform for the OAPA?

Answer 8

Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Law Commission have made several recommendations for reform over the past 30 years in particular. Some of the key reforms are:
-1998: Government published own proposals for reform (Home Office Bill 1998)
-2011: Law Commission announced it would review this area of the law again and make new proposals, the evaluations are identified problems with current OAPA law

Question 9

Explain the evaluation: Out of Date…

Answer 9

P: out of date since it was created 1861, 160 yrs old
WDP:
-Created for Victorian issues, not modern society
-Doesn’t cover modern issues like psychological injuries so outlived usefulness
-However issue resolved by judges…
-Case of Chan Fook allows psychiatric injuries to be classed as ABH and Burstow allows same classed as GBH
-Doesn’t cover transmission sexual diseases, modern problem and judges extended the law within Dica

Question 10

Explain the evaluation: Inconsistency between the offences…

Answer 10

P: Inconsistencies with MR required for some NFO (ABH has same MR as lesser offences)
WDP:
-Having same MR for S47 to assault and battery unfair (max 5 yr in prison vs 6 month)
-Unjust as different levels of blameworthiness between injuries, yet level of MR doesn’t reflect
-Person who causes small cut could be charged with s20 wounding, unjust illogical
-D who intends only a minor injury can be convicted of s18 if they actually cause, as demonstrated in Morrison. Same offence as one who had full intention

Question 11

Explain the evaluation: Complex, out of date language…

Answer 11

P: Over 160 years old, lot of language used within the Act is confusing, different meanings, confusion
WDP:
-S20 uses word maliciously, which means deliberately with ill-will, yet meaning has been held that D could’ve been reckless
-Law Commission suggest reform, replace word malicious to reckless
-S20 and S18 use word grievous requiring clarification by courts in DPP V Smith due to being old-fashioned
-S20 uses word inflict, S18 uses cause, led to problems with interpreting s20 offences and hwo they can be committed
-Confusion resolved in Burstow where courts decided inflict and cause same thing

Question 12

Explain the evaluation: Lots of judicial creativity in this area…

Answer 12

P: Although NFO are statutory offences, law heavily adapted and changed through judicial precedent. Necessary to close gaps, but not role
WDP:
-In Chan Fook: Courts decided psychiatric injury ABH, Burstow: courts decided psychiatric injury can be classed as GBH
-Judicial interpretation necessary to modernise act
-Decision to make STI amount to GBH in Dica, Herpes in Golding
-Judges eroding theory of Separation of Powers, should only apply law, overstepping constitutional role, undermining parliamentary sovereignty

Question 13

Explain the evaluation: No clear hierarchy of offences…

Answer 13

P: OAPA illogical as no clear hierarchy of offences, to reflect increasing severity
WDP:
-S47 and S20 carry same maximum sentence despite injuries in s20 much severe
-S47 offences heard in Magistrates Court, carries same maximum as assault and battery when it’s worse injury
-MR for S47 and S20 much lower than harm actually caused, so for these offences, level of harm foreseen doesn’t correspond, illogical
-Jump in sentence max of 5 years s20 to maximum life s18 is illogical, same AR and type injuries
-Home Office Bill 1998 highlighted issues with structure and proposed a structure

Question 14

Explain the evaluation: Assault and Battery outside OAPA 1861

Answer 14

P: Assault and Battery common law offences outside Act, however caused confusion as required for S47 conviction
WDP:
-All offences not contained or defined in OAPA, as result assault often termed incorrectly, often implied as much more violent than technically is in legal terms
-Common law offence assault out of date as defined in cases such as Tuberville v Savage (over 350 years ago)
-Assault and Battery common law offences, lots of judicial creativity, R v Ireland decided silent phone calls assault, indirect application of force can amount to a battery in DPP v K
-Good for victims of crime and ensures access to justice, unconstitutional of judges to create law and against parliamentary supremacy