Critical evaluation and possible reforms of the law on sections 20 & 18

Question 1

What is the issue with the language of the Act

Answer 1

Words such as maliciously and grievous meant different things now to when the bill was passed this means the law is out of date and need reviving.

Question 2

What issues surround the word wound

Answer 2

The case of Eisenhower defines it as the breaking of the skin this means a small cut to constitute a wound. It seems unfair to charge someone with these serious offences if the cut is only small.

Question 3

What is the disconnect between the AR and the MR

Answer 3

The actus reus is to cause serious harm but t but the defendant only need to intend some harm. Therefore the charge is worse than what the defendant wanted this is unfair.

Question 4

What issues are there in the sentencing of these two offences

Answer 4

Section 20’s maximum sentence is 5 years which is the same as s47 even though its meant to be a higher level of crime. Then the maximum sentence jumps up to life for section 18 this is a huge jump for only a difference in mens rea

Question 5

What are the 4 proposed offences that the law commission set out in its 128 report.

Answer 5

1. Intentional serious injury (s18)
2. Reckless serious injury (s20)
3. Intentional or reckless injury (s47)
4. Intentionally or recklessly applying force to another or making someone believe force is imminent.

Question 6

Why will the law commissions 128 report be clearer than the old law

Answer 6

All offences use the word cause and the actus reus and mens rea all match the appropriate level of guilt. Injury include physical and psychiatric.