Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person
Evaluation of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person:
Rarely in law does everyone agree on something, yet when it comes to the laws on non-fatal offences against the person, everyone agrees that they are in desperate need of an overhaul. They need updating, changing, and some serious clarification.
In a 1993 a Law Commission report on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was described as "inefficient", "obscure", and "erratic". All of these terms sum up the act well, and none of this is surprising. The OAPA is a piece of Victorian legislation and was never intended to be a logical or consistent set of rules, the purpose of the act was to gather together relevant pieces of legislation and form them into a single act for ease of finding. …show more content…
The language used in the act is probably its biggest problem today. The lack of hierarchy is frustrating, and the fact it is old and doesn't cover newer situations can be dealt with in case law, but the language used makes a big difference.
Language changes all the time, in law sometimes case by case (see recklessness and Cunningham) not to mention language is constantly evolving in our everyday lives. Word usage in the Victorian times is drastically different to the way we use language now.
Words can mean the very opposite or have completely different connotations.
Many of the terms used in the Act are not defined in statute which leaves it up to the judges to decide what they mean, this creates inconsistency around the board and makes enforcing the laws harder, and prosecuting those who break them harder still.
A lot of the words are used inconsistently, words such as "maliciously" can mean anything from the standard current definition to simply meaning the act was done with intent (often this is extended to cover Cunningham recklessness as well). Another term that has many definitions is "inflict", it's generally seen to mean 'cause', but not always and this can lead to some strange and confusing …show more content…
This report was never put before parliament, yet a Labour government produced a draft Bill in 1998 which was essentially the same, it included a variety of recommendations, such as:
Introducing statutory definitions for assault and battery, to clear up what counts and what doesn't. This would help to modernise and possibly get us to stop referencing cases that are over 300 years old - Tuberville v Savage (it's fairly unlikely that anyone will have a sword drawn on them in the current age). The offence of s47, assault occasioning actual bodily harm would be replaced with the offence of intentionally or recklessly causing injury to another, it also stated that the prosecution no longer needed to prove the injury was caused by the assault or battery, simply that it was caused by the defendant.
Under the proposal, S20 and S18 would be replaced with the offences of recklessly causing injury to another, and intentionally causing injury to another, respectively. There were no references to wounding, and the maximum sentence for the new S20 would be increased to seven years. The jail sentence for the new S18 would remain the same, at
Rarely in law does everyone agree on something, yet when it comes to the laws on non-fatal offences against the person, everyone agrees that they are in desperate need of an overhaul. They need updating, changing, and some serious clarification.
In a 1993 a Law Commission report on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was described as "inefficient", "obscure", and "erratic". All of these terms sum up the act well, and none of this is surprising. The OAPA is a piece of Victorian legislation and was never intended to be a logical or consistent set of rules, the purpose of the act was to gather together relevant pieces of legislation and form them into a single act for ease of finding. …show more content…
The language used in the act is probably its biggest problem today. The lack of hierarchy is frustrating, and the fact it is old and doesn't cover newer situations can be dealt with in case law, but the language used makes a big difference.
Language changes all the time, in law sometimes case by case (see recklessness and Cunningham) not to mention language is constantly evolving in our everyday lives. Word usage in the Victorian times is drastically different to the way we use language now.
Words can mean the very opposite or have completely different connotations.
Many of the terms used in the Act are not defined in statute which leaves it up to the judges to decide what they mean, this creates inconsistency around the board and makes enforcing the laws harder, and prosecuting those who break them harder still.
A lot of the words are used inconsistently, words such as "maliciously" can mean anything from the standard current definition to simply meaning the act was done with intent (often this is extended to cover Cunningham recklessness as well). Another term that has many definitions is "inflict", it's generally seen to mean 'cause', but not always and this can lead to some strange and confusing …show more content…
This report was never put before parliament, yet a Labour government produced a draft Bill in 1998 which was essentially the same, it included a variety of recommendations, such as:
Introducing statutory definitions for assault and battery, to clear up what counts and what doesn't. This would help to modernise and possibly get us to stop referencing cases that are over 300 years old - Tuberville v Savage (it's fairly unlikely that anyone will have a sword drawn on them in the current age). The offence of s47, assault occasioning actual bodily harm would be replaced with the offence of intentionally or recklessly causing injury to another, it also stated that the prosecution no longer needed to prove the injury was caused by the assault or battery, simply that it was caused by the defendant.
Under the proposal, S20 and S18 would be replaced with the offences of recklessly causing injury to another, and intentionally causing injury to another, respectively. There were no references to wounding, and the maximum sentence for the new S20 would be increased to seven years. The jail sentence for the new S18 would remain the same, at