Non fatal offences include, assault, battery, ABH and 2 GBH. Assault and battery are
common law offences whereas ABH and GBH are defined by statute. ABH is defined by s47
OAPA 1861, first GBH is defined by s20 and another by s18. Assault and battery are
referred to in s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, which states that they are summary offences
with maximum punishment of imprisonment up to 6 months or fine. Maximum sentencing for
ABH and s20 GBH is 5 years imprisonment and for s18 GBH it is anything up to life
imprisonment.
Some words in OAPA 1861 are out of date and ambiguous, antiquated. In modern English,
the word assault means that someone has been hurt. Also, serious assault is the same as
grievous bodily harm rather than the fear of someone being hit. Also, assault needs V to fear
a violence, but the word fear is replaced with apprehend, which is an old word and not
popular in modern English, however, it has been changed because there is a big difference
between someone frightened of being hit and someone who apprehends that he is going to
be hit. Also, battery needs mere touch, whereas in modern English, the word is associated
with the higher level of hurt. In GBH, a wound is the cut of 2 layers of skin which causes
bleeding. However, the slightest cut which causes bleeding could constitute GBH which
won’t be right for the defendant, although, in practice, courts decide that it could be battery
or ABH which can be just and fair approach to it. ABH and GBH are old words which are out
of date and not commonly used in modern English. Also, the word maliciously is out of date
and not used in modern English anymore, however, we have a good interpretation of that
word which makes it simple to understand and apply it: R v Cunningham, maliciously means
intentionally or recklessly. OAPA 1861 is a consolidating act which means that it is made up
of a mixture of old acts in 1861. That factor causes inconsistency between words: GBH s18
uses word cause, GBH s20 uses inflict, s47 ABH uses occasion. In practice, these words are
interpreted as cause, so the question is why these acts still use them if they are confusing.
To solve that problem, parliament needs to re-draft them. These factors can confuse jury or
lay magistrates who don’t have any legal knowledge and experience and take so long to
impose a just verdict.
The rules of OAPA 1861 can be unfair because it prioritises causation rather than mens rea.
A person can be charged for the offence that they caused rather than one they intended. E.g
for ABH and S20 GBH, mens rea requires a person to intend or see a risk of a lesser crime,
R v Grimshaw and R v Roberts. This is because current law is more concerned about harm
suffered by the V rather than what the D really intended. This is very unfair because the
person is convicted for the crime which he didn’t intend and that’s all because he just caused
it.
resisting arrest in s18 GBH is a confusing concept. If a person has committed s20 but it was
when resisting arrest, the charge automatically becomes s18, which is more serious crime.
This can be a positive fact, because it shows how parliament considers the force on police
officers, however, it can be argued on the left realistic side that the police has more priorities
than others and it is a strict approach and teaches a lesson.
The sentencing guidelines for OAPA 1861 are very confusing. ABH and s20 GBH are triable
either way offences and both have maximum 5 years imprisonment. If GBH is a much more
serious crime, why both have similar sentencing (5 years), which shows the unnecessity of
having 2 almost the same sentences. Also, there are 2 GBH s18 and s20. The criticism is
that they have extremely different sentences. S20 has 5 years imprisonment, whereas s18
up to life imprisonment. This is because the mens rea is considered rather than other
factors, also resisting arrest. Hence, it ignores the fact that V is just as seriously hurt in both
instances, because it concentrates on mens rea (intention), R v Taylor. However, the positive
common law offences whereas ABH and GBH are defined by statute. ABH is defined by s47
OAPA 1861, first GBH is defined by s20 and another by s18. Assault and battery are
referred to in s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, which states that they are summary offences
with maximum punishment of imprisonment up to 6 months or fine. Maximum sentencing for
ABH and s20 GBH is 5 years imprisonment and for s18 GBH it is anything up to life
imprisonment.
Some words in OAPA 1861 are out of date and ambiguous, antiquated. In modern English,
the word assault means that someone has been hurt. Also, serious assault is the same as
grievous bodily harm rather than the fear of someone being hit. Also, assault needs V to fear
a violence, but the word fear is replaced with apprehend, which is an old word and not
popular in modern English, however, it has been changed because there is a big difference
between someone frightened of being hit and someone who apprehends that he is going to
be hit. Also, battery needs mere touch, whereas in modern English, the word is associated
with the higher level of hurt. In GBH, a wound is the cut of 2 layers of skin which causes
bleeding. However, the slightest cut which causes bleeding could constitute GBH which
won’t be right for the defendant, although, in practice, courts decide that it could be battery
or ABH which can be just and fair approach to it. ABH and GBH are old words which are out
of date and not commonly used in modern English. Also, the word maliciously is out of date
and not used in modern English anymore, however, we have a good interpretation of that
word which makes it simple to understand and apply it: R v Cunningham, maliciously means
intentionally or recklessly. OAPA 1861 is a consolidating act which means that it is made up
of a mixture of old acts in 1861. That factor causes inconsistency between words: GBH s18
uses word cause, GBH s20 uses inflict, s47 ABH uses occasion. In practice, these words are
interpreted as cause, so the question is why these acts still use them if they are confusing.
To solve that problem, parliament needs to re-draft them. These factors can confuse jury or
lay magistrates who don’t have any legal knowledge and experience and take so long to
impose a just verdict.
The rules of OAPA 1861 can be unfair because it prioritises causation rather than mens rea.
A person can be charged for the offence that they caused rather than one they intended. E.g
for ABH and S20 GBH, mens rea requires a person to intend or see a risk of a lesser crime,
R v Grimshaw and R v Roberts. This is because current law is more concerned about harm
suffered by the V rather than what the D really intended. This is very unfair because the
person is convicted for the crime which he didn’t intend and that’s all because he just caused
it.
resisting arrest in s18 GBH is a confusing concept. If a person has committed s20 but it was
when resisting arrest, the charge automatically becomes s18, which is more serious crime.
This can be a positive fact, because it shows how parliament considers the force on police
officers, however, it can be argued on the left realistic side that the police has more priorities
than others and it is a strict approach and teaches a lesson.
The sentencing guidelines for OAPA 1861 are very confusing. ABH and s20 GBH are triable
either way offences and both have maximum 5 years imprisonment. If GBH is a much more
serious crime, why both have similar sentencing (5 years), which shows the unnecessity of
having 2 almost the same sentences. Also, there are 2 GBH s18 and s20. The criticism is
that they have extremely different sentences. S20 has 5 years imprisonment, whereas s18
up to life imprisonment. This is because the mens rea is considered rather than other
factors, also resisting arrest. Hence, it ignores the fact that V is just as seriously hurt in both
instances, because it concentrates on mens rea (intention), R v Taylor. However, the positive
