Non Fatal Offences Evaluation
The law on Non-Fatal Offences is a mixture of statute (Offences AGAINST THE Persons Act 1861) and
common law. The age of the law and how it’s found in different places makes it problematic. The
Law Commission and many others have frequently been critical about the NFOs and have suggested
radical reforms to solve many of its issues.
Assault is the first NFO and comes from common law. The actus reus of assault is to cause the victim
to apprehend (R v Lamb) immediate (Smith v CCOW) unlawful force, such as gestures (Read v Coker)
and words (R v Ireland). The MR of assault is intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend
unlawful immediate force. Battery is another form of common law. The AR of Battery is applying
unlawful force on another, the force must be hostile defined in Wilson v Pringle. The MR for battery
is Intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force. ABH (actual bodily harm) comes from statute
law found in s47 of the OAPA 1861. The AR for ABH is the act of assault or battery that result in ABH.
Psychiatric harm is defined in R v Chan Fook. This case defines harm not as trivial but as to be wholly
insignificant. The MR of s47 ABH is having the MR of Assault or Battery not for Harm R v Savage.
Wounding come from statute law found in s20 and s18 OAPA 1861. The AR of wounding for both
sections is an unlawful cut, tear or slash breaking 2 layers of the skin, defined in R v Eisenhower. The
MR of s 20 is where D intents or is reckless as to causing some harm R v Mowatt, whereas the MR for
s18 is where the defendant intentionally causes serious harm R v Belfon. GBH grievous bodily harm
also comes from s20 and s18. The AR of both section sis to cause GBH DPP V Smith. The MR of both
section is the same as wounding for both sections.
A profound problem with he NFOs is that most of it is found in statute made over 150 years ago.
Often there are situation that judges 150 years ago couldn’t have guessed would arise, an example is
the R v Chan-Fook case and R v Burstow, judges added psychiatric harm to the law as ABH if not
serious and GBH if the psychiatric harm is very serious and required medical treatment. Another
example is R v Dica, judges added biological harm to GBH. Judges are unelected and arguably
shouldn’t be making such significant changes to the law, it should be Parliament’s role as an elected
body to do so. Furthermore, judges making these changes in cases lead to unfairness as the
defendant is found guilty of an act that wasn’t against the laws at the time of the act. This suggest
that the law is being applied backwards to the case in hand. The LC’s suggested reforms for all the
NFO’s to be found in new statute, this would be better than some of the current offences in the
OAPA 1861 and others in common law, this will also solve unelected judges from making changes in
the law and retrospective law making, in general.
Wounding sits alongside s20 and s18 of GBH, suggesting that breaking 2 layers of the skin is as
serious as GBH. This is absurd considering that even pin pricks can break 2 layers of the skin.
Additionally, wounding is a type of injury that requires different levels of injury, making the law more
complicated that it must be. The English legal system doesn’t have a law on broken bones or
bruising, it has ABH and GBH. The LC recognised this and would include wounding as an injury or
serious injury depending on the section withing the statute. This way the law is easier to understand
and doesn’t lead to mis consumptions and unfair labelling on the defendant. It labels the defendant
based on the level of harm they committed.
The law on Non-Fatal Offences is a mixture of statute (Offences AGAINST THE Persons Act 1861) and
common law. The age of the law and how it’s found in different places makes it problematic. The
Law Commission and many others have frequently been critical about the NFOs and have suggested
radical reforms to solve many of its issues.
Assault is the first NFO and comes from common law. The actus reus of assault is to cause the victim
to apprehend (R v Lamb) immediate (Smith v CCOW) unlawful force, such as gestures (Read v Coker)
and words (R v Ireland). The MR of assault is intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend
unlawful immediate force. Battery is another form of common law. The AR of Battery is applying
unlawful force on another, the force must be hostile defined in Wilson v Pringle. The MR for battery
is Intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force. ABH (actual bodily harm) comes from statute
law found in s47 of the OAPA 1861. The AR for ABH is the act of assault or battery that result in ABH.
Psychiatric harm is defined in R v Chan Fook. This case defines harm not as trivial but as to be wholly
insignificant. The MR of s47 ABH is having the MR of Assault or Battery not for Harm R v Savage.
Wounding come from statute law found in s20 and s18 OAPA 1861. The AR of wounding for both
sections is an unlawful cut, tear or slash breaking 2 layers of the skin, defined in R v Eisenhower. The
MR of s 20 is where D intents or is reckless as to causing some harm R v Mowatt, whereas the MR for
s18 is where the defendant intentionally causes serious harm R v Belfon. GBH grievous bodily harm
also comes from s20 and s18. The AR of both section sis to cause GBH DPP V Smith. The MR of both
section is the same as wounding for both sections.
A profound problem with he NFOs is that most of it is found in statute made over 150 years ago.
Often there are situation that judges 150 years ago couldn’t have guessed would arise, an example is
the R v Chan-Fook case and R v Burstow, judges added psychiatric harm to the law as ABH if not
serious and GBH if the psychiatric harm is very serious and required medical treatment. Another
example is R v Dica, judges added biological harm to GBH. Judges are unelected and arguably
shouldn’t be making such significant changes to the law, it should be Parliament’s role as an elected
body to do so. Furthermore, judges making these changes in cases lead to unfairness as the
defendant is found guilty of an act that wasn’t against the laws at the time of the act. This suggest
that the law is being applied backwards to the case in hand. The LC’s suggested reforms for all the
NFO’s to be found in new statute, this would be better than some of the current offences in the
OAPA 1861 and others in common law, this will also solve unelected judges from making changes in
the law and retrospective law making, in general.
Wounding sits alongside s20 and s18 of GBH, suggesting that breaking 2 layers of the skin is as
serious as GBH. This is absurd considering that even pin pricks can break 2 layers of the skin.
Additionally, wounding is a type of injury that requires different levels of injury, making the law more
complicated that it must be. The English legal system doesn’t have a law on broken bones or
bruising, it has ABH and GBH. The LC recognised this and would include wounding as an injury or
serious injury depending on the section withing the statute. This way the law is easier to understand
and doesn’t lead to mis consumptions and unfair labelling on the defendant. It labels the defendant
based on the level of harm they committed.
