Evaluation of Non-Fatal Offences

Question 1

Assault and battery

Answer 1

• s.39 confuses them by calling both ‘common assault’
• Terms are not defined, rely on common law for meaning
• People think assault means that physical attack and battery means severe beating

Question 2

ABH

Answer 2

1 ‘Assault’ is misleading as it is battery also
- ‘Occasioning’ is an old word
- ‘ABH’ not defined in OAPA, leaves MR unclear
- AR and MR do not correspond e.g savage, unfair because goes against principle that people should only be responsible for what they foresee
- Constructive intent forces people to take responsibility ensuring victims get justice
- Sentence jumps from 5 years even tho D may not have intended/foreseen risk

Question 3

s.20

Answer 3

• ‘GBH’ old fashioned term
  Rely on case law for def
• ‘Wound’ could include minor injuries, serious woiimds could simply be treated as GBH
• ‘Maliciously’ isn’t defined
• AR and MR do not correspond, D need not foresee serious injury just some harm
• Constructive intent forces D to be guilty for their actions
• Sentence same as s.47 even tho D has caused much more severe injury

Question 4

s.18

Answer 4

• Debate over whether ‘cause’ and ‘inflict’ mean different things
• D’s wound/GBH resisting arrest receive same sentence as those who intend to cause serious harm (Morrison), two MR are unbalanced
• Sentence jumps to life even tho the injury is same as s.20
• ‘Wounding’ seems to minor