To have such a difference in sentence where the defendant had the same mens rea seems unjust. This means that to be guilty the defendant must either intend or foresee about the actual injury.
Another problem with the sentencing on non-fatal offences against the person is that the only difference between s.
Disease was included as a physical injury for the purpose of the most serious offence. The draft bill suggests removing the offence of wounding completely, so a serious cut would be considered a serious injury and a minor cut would be merely an injury.
As nearly one fifth of all offences involve violence against the person, it is important, in the interests of both the defendant and the victim, that the law concerning the non-fatal offences is clear and up-to-date.
Posted by. There are also problems with the law of non-fatal offences against the person within domestic violence.The linking of grievous bodily harm and wounding in the same sentences is misleading. This has been used in both section 18 and section Responses are invited between November and February Although most issues would be resolved, the offence of intentional or reckless injury which would replace section 47 could still be improved. Sunday, 21 June A2 Law - Non Fatal Offences Essay Critically evaluate the current law on non-fatal offences, and suggest any reforms that you consider might improve the law. While judges have extended the meaning of bodily harm, it would be preferable to re-write the law and make it completely clear what type of harm is included in the different offences. The language used in the Offence Against the Person Act is outdated. However, the offence is unambiguous in that it is clear to everyone what a wound is, meaning juries find it easy to apply. Another problem is the fact that the prosecution has to prove an assault or battery for S47 but not for S20 and S In in a Report on the non-fatal offences, the Law Commission identified three main problems; the language is complex, obscure and old-fashioned, there is a complicated and technical structure of the offences and thirdly, non-lawyers find the law on this area totally unintelligible. The sentencing inconsistencies would also be resolved by the proposals, as the Bill set out a new sentencing structure matching the blameworthiness of the offence to the maximum sentence. The law on non-fatal offences has many sentencing issues. To have such a difference in sentence where the defendant had the same mens rea seems unjust. Another problem with the sentencing on non-fatal offences against the person is that the only difference between s. The fact that a person who causes a small cut can be charged with the more serious offence of S20 instead of S47 seems unjust.
S18, which also involves inflicting GBH, has a maximum of life. This is because the only difference between the two offences can be the victim suffering some discomfort Miller.
This gives the offence more structure and consistency. Apart from there not being a clear definition, the hierarchy of the offences can also be criticised.
While judges have extended the meaning of bodily harm, it would be preferable to re-write the law and make it completely clear what type of harm is included in the different offences.