evaluation on non-fatal

Question 1

P: Victorian act of parliament

Answer 1

Dev: its not suitable to deal with modern issues never imagined by victorian politicians e.g. HIV/AIDS (Dica)
E: Case law helps to adapt to new situations

Question 2

P:Language is outdated

Answer 2

Dev: Issues with definitions, ‘assault’, ‘common assault’, ‘common assault and battery’ used interchangeably. ‘maliciously’ is outdated. ‘wounding’ not defined. e.g. cunningham says malicious includes recklessness but we infer bad motive.
E: However case law and charging standard explains meaning

Question 3

P:structure of offences is inconsistent

Answer 3

Dev: Doesnt support principle of fault, D should only be liable for harm at fault for. mens rea of non-fatals doesnt match up to levels of guilty. e.g. assault and battery same as ABH mens rea.
E: however provides justice for D who caused more harm than foresaw

Question 4

P: Sentencing issues

Answer 4

Dev: Sentence doesnt conform to Ladder Principle. This states as offences get more serious, their sentences should increase at proportionate rate. E.g. assault and battery same sentence, jumps from 6 months to 5 years for ABH even though same mens rea.
E: Judges can use discretion so punishment fits crime

Question 5

Assault

Answer 5

An act which causes a victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, intention or recklessness to cause R v Ireland

Question 6

Battery

Answer 6

Unlawful application of force, intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force R v Martin

Question 7

Assault occasioning ABH

Answer 7

An assault or battery causing actual bodily harm, intention or subjective recklessness to cause victim to apprehend or subjected to force R v Miller

Question 8

Wounding and GBH s.20 and 18

Answer 8

Wounding or inflicting GBH, intention to cause some harm or subjective recklessness R v Wood

Question 9

Wounding and Inflicting GBH with intent s.18

Answer 9

Wounding or inflicting GBH, intent to cause really serious or intention to resist arrest R v Nedrick