Non Fatal Evaluation Flashcards
Strength
Clarification
Following the HL desicion in (R v Savage) (parmenter) MR for ABH is now clear intention or recklessness needed for initial assault, but not for the harm this occasions
Potential conflict between inflict in s.20 and cause in s.18 has been resolved, inflict means cause and does not require a prior assault
Strength
Development
Battery developed to include indirect batteries (Haystead) and omissions (santana-Bermudez)
The law for ABH has adapted to meet new circumstances inclusion of psychological harm (chan fook) and cutting a person’s hair (DPP v Smith)
GBH has developed to meet new circumstances such as the inclusion of serious psychological harm (Burstowe) and serious biological harm (Dica)
Actus reus of GBH now recognises the age if victim as a relevant factor (Bollom) and possible cumulative effect of a series of minor injuries (Brow and Stratton)
Therfore shoudl parliament intervene?
Weakness
General crits
Accepted that the law needs reform
Unjust, chaotic, irrational, outdated, unclear
Prof J.C Smith described oapa as a rag bag of offences
Oapa is victoriana legislation never intended to be logical was a consolidation act sections are random s.47 s.20 s.18
Constantly redefined through cases
So many changes lead to unesccary and expensive appeals process
Unclear or uncertain law risks creating injustice and unfairness to individuals as well as making the work of police in court more difficult and time consuming not reformed yet
Weaknesses
Language
Key phrases not defined in the statute so need be explained through cases
Whosoever=old fashioned
Occasionaning=old fashioned
Grevious=not used as a word
Maliciously=not in common use, easier terms to use
Not clear what assault actually is narrow technical meaning wider menaing in s.47 to encompass assault and battery
Vocabulary can be misleading assault in s.47 maliciously in s.18 inflict in s.20 argues inflict requires battery to take place
Use of cause in s.18 poses further problems as oppose to inflict in s.20 lord steyn leading judgement (R v Ireland) ruled that there is no radical difference between the meaning of the words cause and inflict
Wounding had a technical rather than a common definition joint charging standard substantially clarifies wich charge to bring in for different levels of injury
Non lawyers find the act unintelligable
Weaknesses
Problems with specific offences
Still no clear statutory definition of assault and battery
Reuirement that threat must be of immediate force to be an assault means there is no gap in the law eg im going to hit you tomrmrow is not an assault
Menajng of immediate in assault is vague like in smith and constanza courts confuse apprehension of immediate personal violence with immediate apprehension of personal violence (R v ireland)
Strength
Clarification
Meanjn
