Non-fatal offences Flashcards
What are the maximum sentences for s.47, s.20, and s.18?
- s.47 - 5 years maximum sentence
- s.20 - 5 years maximum sentence
- s.18 - Life sentence
What are the 4 key needs for reform of the OAPA 1861?
- Its out of date
- There are inconsistencies between the different offences
- No conformity in the correspondence principle (this principle states that the results which D must intend or foresee would match the results)
- Much of the language used is archaic
Why is the OAPA 1861 being out of date a factor for needing a reform?
- Its over 150 years old and causes some problems
- There was no understanding of mental health problems at the time, therefore only a mention of bodily harm, not mental harm
- Chan Fook (1994) and Barstow (1997) have tried to fix it (relating to mental health)
- There was also not a very clear understanding of the way diseases were transmitted from person to person
- Dica (2004) has now interpreted the 1861 as including the deliberate infection of someone with a disease as inflicting grievous bodily harm
Why is the OAPA 1861 being inconsistent between offences a factor for needing a reform?
- No clear hierarchy of offences
- s.47 has the same mens rea as for an assault and battery and doesn’t require the defendant to intend or even realise there is a risk of any injury
- Somebody causing a small cut can be charged under s.20 instead of ‘occasioning actual bodily harm’ under s.47. A small cut often doesn’t equate to grevious bodily harm (unjust)
- A D who intends or foresees the risk of minor injury can be convicted of the serious s.18 if a serious injury occurs when he intends to resist arrest (not fair that by intending to resist arrest you could be liable for the same offence as somebody who intended to cause very serious injury
Why is the OAPA 1861 correspondence principle a factor for needing a reform?
(he shouldn’t be held liable unless he meant to do it, or knowingly ran the risk of it
- The 2015 Report points out however that a D can indeed be guilty of both s.20 and a s.47 offence without intending or being reckless as to causing harm
- This is a clear breach of the correspondence principle
Why is the OAPA 1861 language being archaic show need for a reform?
- s.20 - ‘maliciously’. Modern language interprets this as deliberate intention with ill-will to the victim. The Act interprets it as simply intending to do harm or being reckless
- Recommendation is that the word ‘reckless’ be used instead
What was the 1998 draft bill and its clauses?
- The Labour government issued a consultation document with the intention of replacing s.18, 20, 47 and assault and battery
- The clauses are:
1) Intentional serious injury
2) Reckless serious injury
3) Intentional or reckless injury
4) Assault to be defined as (a) applied force or impact to the body of another, or (b) caused another to believe any force or impact
What was the Law Commission Report 2015?
- Proposed a new statute respecting the following principles:
- Clear hierarchy of offences describing harm caused, culpability of the defendant and the maximum penalty in proportion
- Clear and accurate labels for each offence
- All elements of an offence to be set out clearly
What were the three clauses of the Law Commission Report 2015?
- The word ‘wounding’ would only be included if it caused serious injury.
- Higher level of mens rea required than in the present s.20. The D would only be guilty if he was aware there was a risk of serious injury.
- D is guilty if he intentionally or recklessly caused injury.
What are the other suggestions that were apart of the Law Commission Report 2015?
‘Aggravated assault’ - Should be a term used to cover low-level injuries, and more
‘Physical assault’ - Replaces common law battery, and more
Threatened assault - This would replace the old common law offence of assault, and more
Causing serious harm intending to resist arrest - Currently carries a life sentence that should be a lower maximum penalty
Assault intending to resist arrest - Lower level of assault. Would be charged if no serious harm was caused, and more
(All suggesting In unjust, not fair situations of interpretation for the maximum sentence/penalty to be reduced)
What are the positives of the OAPA Act 1861?
- It has created legal certainty and stability as most of the laws are long standing and they provide predictability in the justice system and reforming the legislation could lead to uncertainty and disrupt already established legal principles
- Covers a wide range of crimes
- Has evolved to continue being used in current time e.g. inclusion of physiological injuries
- Carries historic significance as it’s been used for over 150 years and is the foundation of legislation and is still used in the present showing longevity
What is the problem with sentence lengths in the OAPA 1861 Act?
- No clear hierarchy of offences
- s.47 carries a max sentence of 5 years while assault and battery is 6 months (unjust)
- Sentence length for s.20 and s.47 are the same (5 years) despite s.20 being more serious (unjust as the level of blame is so different)
What case solved the problem of the interpretation of ‘inflict’ in the OAPA 1861 Act?
- Barstow (1997)
- ‘Inflict’ in s.20, but ‘cause’ in s.18 did ‘inflict’ mean a technical assault had to take place?
- It did not
What is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)?
- Still applied in England and Wales
- Regards the offences of ABH and GBH
- Common law offences like assault and battery are not included
One way how the OAPA 1861 act has evolved over the past 160 years?
Now includes injuries such as psychological ones that wouldn’t have been considered or understood in Victorian times
