Non-fatal Eval

Question 1

P: Victorian act of parliament

Answer 1

Dev: not suitable to deal with modern issues which were unthinkable by victorian politicians: psychiatric (ireland), stalking (constanza), HIV(dica)
E: However case law helps to adapt, seen above

Question 2

P:Structure of offences

Answer 2

Dev: Doesnt support principle of fault
D should only be liable for harm at fault for
Mens rea for assault and battery same as ABH
Mens rea of s.20 GBH same as ABH
E:However provides justice for victims when harm worse than foresaw

Question 3

P:Outdated and confusing language

Answer 3

Dev: “assault” “common assault” and “common assault and battery” used interchangeably
“malicviously” outdate - infer bad motive but includes recklessness (cunningham)
“actual” and “grievous” not defined
“wounding” not defined and includes minor breaks in skin, not in line with general understanding
E:However case law andf charging standard gives clarity

Question 4

P: Sentencing issues

Answer 4

Dev: sentences dont conform to ladder principle
As offences get more serious, sentences should increase
Assault and battery have same sentence - then jumps to 5 years for ABH with same mens rea
ABH and GBH s.20 same sentencing, 5 years to life for s.18
However judges have discretion for suitable within statutory guidelines