>> Preview <<
One criticism of the non-fatal offences against the person is that the wording of the acts and
offences uses archaic language which can be seen as outdated. For example, the words
"grievous" and "maliciously" do not have definitions. This means that judges are forced to
interpret what these words may mean. For example, in the case of Savage the word
"maliciously" was defined as 'intention or recklessness'. It also means that these terms are
incomprehensible to the lay person and have no precise definition in statute. However, the
courts have effectively defined these terms through case law. In the case of Chan-fook it
was said that psychiatric illness can be 'actual bodily harm'. Burstow and Ireland then
expanded on the law, stating that psychological harm could constitute GBH. Dica then
further expanded the definition to include biological GBH. Although this constant
redefinition can cause confusion, it allows the law to progress in a way that reflects the
values of our society...
>>continued in purchase<<