non-fatals evaluation Flashcards
1
Q
the law on assault
A
- the least serious of the non-fatal
- is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to fear immediate, unlawful, personal violence (Logdon)
2
Q
the law of battery
A
- intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force to the victim (Collins v Willcock)
- can be the slightest of touches (Thomas) and can be indirect force
3
Q
the law of ABH
A
- assault occasioning ABH requires an assault or a battery that causes an injury that is calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim (Miller)
4
Q
the law of GBH
A
- GBH S.20 and S.18 requires the defendant to inflict a wound or GBH (really serious harm, Smith)
- S.20 requires intention or recklessness as to some harm (Parmenter) whereas S.18 requires intention to cause serious harm (Taylor)
5
Q
paragraph 1 - strength
A
- the law on non-fatal has been criticized and has many issues, however…
- comprehensive range of offences
- the tiered structure provides a range of offences that can reflect degrees of harm and culpability
- the law has shown that it is adaptable due to decisions such as R v Dica where biological GBH was recognised
6
Q
paragraph 2 - language
A
- OATPA 1861 - language
- the act consolidated all previous laws on non-fatal offences but did did not redefine them or rationalise them so they fit together
- no attempt to set out new definitions that made sense alongside each other as this was only intended to be an Act that put all offences in one place
- most issues surrounding the offences are due to ambiguities in their definitions and people trying to avoid conviction by arguing that the old definitions do not cover current issues
7
Q
paragraph 3 - assault common beliefs
A
- ‘any act or words that cause the victim t fear, immediate, unlawful, personal violence’ (Logdon)
- there is confusion over the meaning of the word assault for the average person
- most members of the public believe that an ‘assault’ is a physical attack and not a threat
- the media use the word assault for various crimes to simplify the news and this has led to people believing that some sort of violence is required
8
Q
paragraph 4 - s.20 ‘inflict’ and s.18 ‘cause’
A
- the act uses different wording for each offence and therefore appears to suggest the ways in which the offences are carried out is different
- Lord Hope stated in Burstow that for all practical purposes there is no difference between the two words
- the word inflict would indicate something unpleasant where the word cause does not
- if the words are considered to mean the same, why does the Act not use the same words? this causes confusion and led to judges having to clarify the law
9
Q
Ss.47, 20 and 18 - sentencing
A
- Ss.47 and 20 carry the same maximum sentence of 5 years even though the level of injury can be very different, whereas s.20 and s.18 have the same level of injury but hugely different sentences (5 years and life)
- the max sentences seem to be based on the level of mens rea required, the mens rea for s.18 requires intention to cause serious harm and therefore the sentencing power should be much higher
- however, not been sufficient differentiation between the mens rea of the offences and this has led to confusion in the courts
10
Q
conclusion
A
- weakness out weighs strengths and laws in need of a reform
- law commission proposed reforms in 2015 to change the offences but these have not been implemented by parliament
