Evaluation: Non-Fatal Offences

• There is no definition in the offences against the person act of 'psychiatric harm'. The allowance of psychiatric harm as more than transient and trifling in the offence of Section 47 ABH was created in the case of Chan Fook. OAPA was made in 1861 where psychiatric illnesses weren't recognised, it shows that the law is old and outdated. The judges' create definitions and they are not medically trained. The law is applied inconsistently, this is because different judges will apply their own personal opinions on what they believe 'psychiatric harm' to be. This goes against Parliamentary Sovereignty as Parliament is the only power able to make laws whereas in this case the judges are the ones creating law.

• There is no definition in the offences against the person act of 'wounding'. The definition of wounding is found in the case of Eisenhower, this is over 20 years old and outdated. It is not clear in its definition, resulting in absurd results. For example, a paper cut or a pinprick can be classed as GBH and could lead to a harsh sentence for very minimal injuries. The law does not explain the definition of internal injuries, internal bleeding can be far more severe than a scratch on the surface of the skin.

• There is no definition of 'assault' or 'battery'. The case laws are outdated, Tuberville v Savage is from 1669. It does not comply with modern times and demonstrates how the law is outdated. The terminology used within the case law is also outdated, the word 'apprehended' isn't commonly used within society.

• The mens rea of section 47 does not match the actus reus. To be convicted of Section 47 the defendant must have both the actus reus and the mens rea. The actus reus is to cause the injury and the mens rea is to commit the act, not intend the harm. This is unfair as the defendant could have accidentally caused the harm, like in the case of Tuberville v Savage but they would still receive the full sentence for section 47.

• The mens rea of section 20 does not match the actus reus. The actus reus of section 20 is 'really serious harm' whereas the mens rea is 'intention or recklessness as to causing some harm'. The two are different, this shows that the defendant will not receive a fair trial. It also allows for people to cause really serious harm but then claim that they only wanted to cause some harm which would result in a lesser sentence. It shows that there is inconsistency within the law and that most of the statutes are old.

• Sentencing of section 47. The punishment for section 47 is unfair as it based on the reaction of the victim. For example it is a battery is someone touches your clothes, as seen in the case of Thomas. However, in theory is someone walks past another and touches their clothes and this results in psychological harm then they could essentially receive a five year prison sentence even though they did not intend to touch the victim.

• Sentencing of section 18 and section 20. Both sections have the same actus reus, the only difference is that for section 18 it requires intention only as a form of mens rea. This means that someone could easily be prosecuted under the wrong offence if intention was confused and this would be unfair on the defendant.

• Sentencing of section 47 and section 20. Here both sentences are the same, five years imprisonment, despite the fact that both offences are very different. In section 47, the defendant must cause ABH, in section 20 the defendant must cause GBH. These crimes are very different, one is far more severe than the other but yet they both carry the same sentence, this is very unjust.

• Reform: The Law Commission stated that 'attempts by the courts had led to a series of inconsistent and contradictory decisions'.  In 1993 the law commission published a report entitled 'offences against the person and general principles'. The report redrafted offences and criticised the current law. The main criticisms were that the language is complicated, the structure is complicated and that there is a complete unintelligibility to the layman. The Home Office issued the Draft Criminal Law Bill in 1998 based on the law commissions' recommendations. The bill updated the language used by the courts however, the recommendations have never been adopted.