s20

• ++ case law meets shortfalls of statute - gbh developed to include biological harm (dica) and psychological harm (burstow)
• ++actus reus of gbh recognises age and health of victim (bollom)
• -- no statutory definition for grievous and bodily harm, set out in case law, inconsistent outcomes
• -- language is old fashioned, maliciously not defined, modern language means acting deliberately with ill will but 1861 act interpreted in (Cunningham) to cover recklessness for s20
• -- actus reus issue, inflict in s20, cause in s18 but (burstow) ruled they have the same meaning
• -- sentencing issues, little difference between s18/20 but huge disparity in max sentence (5 years for s20 same as s47, up to life for s18)
• -- wounding not defined, can a person be charged of pricking victims finger with a pin (eisenhower)
• -- doesn't conform to correspondence principle, can be guilty of s20 without intending or being reckless as to causing serious harm (parmenter)
• reform - max sentence 7 years (2 more than current)
• reform - 1998 draft bill in home office consultation document, set out 4 main offences, clause 2 created offence of reckless serious injury to replace s20, not passed into act
• reform - law commission 2015 proposals support this, d guilty if recklessly causes serious injury (risk of serious injury - higher level of mens rea than current law)