NFO evaluation Flashcards
which 2 ways may the law commission argue that the OAPA is inconsistent?
- content
- structure
why may assault be confusing for lay people?
aggravated assault involves an injury, so this could be confusing as it used the word assault, and normal assault does not have any contact and without injuries
how are the LC suggesting to make assault less confusing for lay people?
to change the name of assault and battery to;
-threatened assault
-physical assault
why does s47 go against the principle of correspondence?
under s47 and s20 the defendants liability is based upon the actus reus of the offence and not the mens rea, which creates the assumption that actus reus is more important than the mens rea
what do the LC suggest to do to make s47 go with the principle of correspondence?
-d’s guilt should be based on d’s level of fault - this comes from d’s mens rea
-mens rea considers what d was aiming to do, and as this is a part of the crime that d can control, it is fair to base d’s guilt on this
why is there an issue with there being a massive difference between the max sentences of s20 and s18?
-there is a huge gap between sentencing, where ma sentence under s20 is 5 years, the max sentence under s18 is life
-it can be seen as unfair, as s18 has the same max sentence as murder, despite the crucial difference of death not occurring nor being intended
what do the lc suggest they do to help the gap between the 2 max sentences?
-they will leave s18 as it is as max, but they will increase the max sentence for s20 to 7 years to reduce this gap
-it is sensible to not decrease s18, as s18 is good enough mens rea for murder as it shows disregard for life and the sentence also acts as a strong deterrent
why may wounding be seen as not a very sensible non-fatal offence?
wounding is found in s20 and s18 alongside GBH, which implies it is extremely serious which is not always the case as even a pin prick can be considered a wound as long as it breaks 2 layers of skin
what do lc suggest to make wounding a more sensible NFO?
wounding is out of place in these sectors, so the term ‘wounding’ will be removed from the law, so that it can be based upon the severity of the injury
why can it be confusing that ABH and GBH both use the word bodily?
a lot of injuries in these sectors are not to do with the body, rather psychiatric harm, or even hair cutting so the term bodily may cause some confusion
what is lc’s suggestion to stop the word bodily from being confusing in GBH and ABH?
changing the word ‘bodily’ to ‘injury’ to ensure it would be less confusing
why may it be an issue that there are not many statutory definitions, and that case law holds these defences together?
- parliament didn’t define many key terms, so most of the rules come from cases
- judges may go against supremacy; including things like psychiatric harm as ABH/GBH may not be what parliament intended
- precedent can also conflict with each other
what is lc’s suggestion to make the offences less case law based?
- the new law would be an act passed by parliament
- if parliament include key definitions this would be clearer about their intention, and less likely to change than a precedent
what do the lc want to change assault to?
threatened assault
what do the lc want to change battery to?
physical assault
