Law regarding non fatal offences evaluation free essay sample

The law regarding non-fatal offences was described by the law commission as ‘inefficient as a vehicle for controlling justice where many aspects of the law are still obscure and its application erratic’. Furthermore professor J C smith described it as a ‘rag bag of offe3nces with no attempt to introduce consistency as to substance or form’. The first issue with the law on non-fatal offences is the language; firstly the definitions of key phrases are not defined in statute but rather rely on case law examples. For example the law regarding GBH is constantly evolving as shown in the case of R v Dica concerning the transmission of biological GBH however this is not illustrated in statute. The language is also seen as outdated, badly drafted and inconsistent; for example the use of the word maliciously in GBH implies wickedness on behalf of the defendant however this is not always the case in regard to the defendant’s mens rea. We will write a custom essay sample on Law regarding non fatal offences evaluation or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The use of the word ‘assault’ although to those versed in law will know it as ‘causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence’ to the lay person implies a level of physicality to the act where this would refer a ‘common assault’ or actual bodily harm involving either an assault or battery along with more actual bodily harm. Reform of these issues was proposed by the law commission in regard to replacing the terms used within each offence so that they were clearly defined in statute and no longer relying on case law, with new forms of violence such as those shown in R v Dica to be included and updated. The second issue of non-fatal offences is the hierarchy of sentencing; currently the law stands that assault and battery receive a maximum 6 months imprisonmen  having a possible sentence of life. However as s. 20 requires far worse injuries than ABH it seems illogical to place them at the same sentence when one is far more serious in terms of both actus reus and mens rea. S. 18 on the other hand jumps straight to a life sentence for simply a more direct intention that s. 20. Reform of this issue follows the theory of increasing the sentence threshold for s. 20 from 5 to 7 years with the current sentence for s. 18 being sufficient. Lastly the issue of constructive intent in regard to both s. 47 and s. 20 are an issue; s. 47 ABH requires only intention or recklessness as to assault or battery. S. 20 requires only recklessness as to ‘some harm’. In both cases the fact that theoretically the maximum sentence of 5 years could be applied for an act with the defendant only had the basic mens rea towards seems unjust and runs counter to a defendant’s criminal liability that they should be liable only to the amount of fault they possess. Reform of this matter was laid out in the draft bill by the law commission in 1998 that the harm intended of foreseen must correspond to the offence committed contrary to the mens rea principles in Roberts and Mowatt. A person will only be held liable of actual bodily harm if the possess the prior knowledge that their actions would cause injury not just the assault or battery. Similarly a person must have known that their actions would recklessly or intentionally cause serious harm not just some harm in relation to s. 20