non-fatal offences revision EVALUATION

Question 1

OAPA is out of date

Answer 1

It is over 150 years old.

No mention of mental harm. - Chan Fook and Burstow held the meaning of bodily harm included injury to mental health.

Question 2

Inconsistency between different offences

Answer 2

D who intends/forsees risk of minor injury can be convicted of the most serious injury when he intends only to resist arrest. (Morrison)

Question 3

No conformity with the correspondence principle

Answer 3

2015 law report points out that the offences in the act do not have to conform to the correspondence principle.

The results which D must intend/foresee should match the results of what actually occurs.

D should not be held liable for a given kind + level of harm uless he meant to do it or at least knowingly ran the risk of it.

Question 4

Need for modern, simplified language.

Answer 4

Much of the language is archaic.

Question 5

Inconsistency

Answer 5

In s20 the word “inflict” is used, yet in s18 the word “cause” is used instead.

Question 6

Law commission recommendations

Answer 6

• More coherent set of offences.
• No overlap or inconsistency between offences.
• AR + MR for each are clearly set out.
• New offence of aggravated assault (with a higher maximum penalty than common assault). - To give victims greater protection.