Study guide
A2 Criminal Law Non-Fatal offences against the person
Full revision chart for A2 criminal law NFO's. Includes key cases
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
2 reviews
By: erindaly330 • 4 year ago
By: asalevelnotes00 • 3 year ago
How come
By: criminologyhelp • 4 year ago
Content preview
Overview of Discussion Areas Statute/Act is not comprehensive A mix of common law and statutory rules. The 1861 Act includes a number of non-fatal offences but fails to include the most commonly committed
The offences are not clearly defined and this has resulted in a large amount of case law. namely assault and battery. These 2 offences are ancient common law offences which are now
Archaic/antiquated language is used. charged as “assault” under S. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
3 offences are contained in an old statute (which has had more of its subsections S39 uses the term “assault” for both assault and battery which can be confusing as the common law
repealed than remain in use today). actually refers to them as separate offences.
There are arguments that for S47 and S20 offences liability is constructed. All of the non- fatal offences should be in a single statute which would make for clearer, more
There is illogical sentencing. accessible (easy to find) law.
The statute needs updating because it fails to take account of developments in medicine
and a change in society’s views.
Described as a “rag bag” of offences as the original Act consolidated laws from various Delineation between the offences is unclear
sources without consistency or form. The statute fails to explain what level of injuries come into each offence. The creation of the Crown
Prosecution Service’s. Joint Charging Standards should help with this, however this only provides
Antiquated/old/outdated statute guidance, is not definitive and as its only guidance it does not have to be followed (it’s not obligatory)
The rules for S24, S20 and S18 offences are laid out in a statute which dates
back over 150 years. The Act now has more repealed sections than it has still in
force, leading us to believe that it is in need of some wholesale Breadth of Some Offences
change/updating/reform and is no longer fit for purpose . AO2 on Non- Some offences are very broadly defined. For example a S18 offence is simply too
broad. It covers situations of “unlawfully and maliciously wounding or causing
Fatal Offences GBH with intent” and also “intention to resist being detained or arrested by a
Arguments that the statute is not appropriate/fit for purpose- does
policeman.
not meet the needs of our modern 21st century society
The Language in the statute We ishave seen that
outdated and theisstatute is lacking in that it does not take account
misleading…
Many of the words used are ofoutdated psychiatric
and injury,
not usedreckless transmission
in common parlance of(everyday
HIV (DICA) , stalkingtoday).
language and This means that they can be
hate campaigns… (BURSTOW etc.)-perhaps the time has come for
difficult for jurors and defendants (ordinary people/lay people) to understand. Words which are outdated include “grievous”,
“maliciously”, “infliction”. TheParliament
language is toantiquated,
create a new statute
archaic more
and fit for modern
confusing. It was day society and
a mish-mash of pre-existing laws cobbled
together. So, S47 uses the word “occasioning” (ABH), S20 uses “inflicting” GBH and S18courts
which meets our needs .However- one could argue that the uses the words “causing” GBH. These
terms required interpretationthrough the common
by the courts law have
which have said been ableall
that they toreally
adaptmeansufficiently
“cause”.andAthat
new statute would give a single,
clear approach and update the withlanguage.
a new statute we risk
The word bad/unsatisfactory
“inflict” used in the S20 law (poor drafting
offence has been from
the subject of much judicial
discussion (consternation)- In Parliament)
Burstow the andHLthesaid
lawthat
is slow to change
a person could–be it can beoffluid
guilty with JP
inflicting GBHandwhere there had been no
physical injury and Lord Roskill flexible. Although,
and Lord many would
Hope stated argue
that there wasthat
noitreal
is not democratic
difference for the words “cause” and “inflict”.
between
judges to decide the meaning of a statute (Act of Parliament) and
Use ofdecide what“maliciously”
the word Parliament intended- Perhaps the time has come for
The wordParliament to pass
maliciously has acaused
new Act and clarify
confusion this area
in relation toof law.
S20 offences. . For S20 the word “malicious” is used
to denote the required state of mind MR. Many think that this word means with “ill- will” or deliberately (nastily)
Unfairness created by the breadth and wording of S18 offence (+ harshness of the decision
when it fact the courts have decided that it simply means that the offence can be committed intentionally or
in “Morrison”);_You could be convicted of S18 for technically only causing a very minor injury to
recklessly. This is complicated for both jurors and defendants and in need of reform.
a police office under the definition of S18 if you had some foresight of consequences , that some
harm, albeit minor harm, might be caused to the police officer in your attempt to evade being
stopped by the police/arrested. The maximum sentence for a S18 is LIFE which is disproportionate Not including any reference to mental health issues in the statute.
to the offence committed and the injury caused. Is S18 too pro- public policy- trying to protect our In 1861 there was not a good understanding of mental health issues and so only referred to “bodily harm”.
police officers in doing their duty and treat those who injury the police, our public servants, in the However the common law has tried to address changing times- both social and medical and the case of
course of their duty in the most severe way. Chan Fook and Burstow have both said that mental harm is included- however it is still not a definite
S18 is too broad if it includes wounding, GBH and injuring a police officer!!!! definition and would benefit from clarification by Parliament. Burstow confirmed that no “technical assault”
For the general offence (not the part about resisting arrest) the MR is intention however for the is required for a S20, it can be committed through fear (it was a hate campaign in Burstow)
defendant who commits GBH/wounds a police officer resisting arrest, the D must have at only
been reckless about causing some harm. There are inconsistencies between the 2 different
parts/halves of the S18 offence.
Inconsistencies between each offence
There are real inconsistencies in this area of the law. S47 ABH has the same MR of assault or battery (intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence/force or
intentionally/recklessly applying unlawful force). D does not have to have intended or foreseen causing the level of harm required for ABH as shown in the case of Roberts (D touched V’s skirt- battery- V jumped out of
car, fearing sexual assault and sustained ABH- D had no idea she would leap out- but the MR of S47 is satisfied if he had the MR for battery). So, there is a mis- match between the the AR and MR in both S47 and
S20. This is unjust because the maximum sentence of S47 ABH offences is 5 years which is much higher than for assault or battery which is 6 months. The hierarchical structure of the non- fatal offences (is in terms of
harm- rather than criminal intent/level of blame) is non- sequential, so a small change in level of harm results in a large change of sentence which is harsh and unjust.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller asalevelnotes00. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
66781 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now