NFO Evaluation (Non Fatal Offences)

• (General evaluation of NFO) - Judicial development

  *strengths*: courts have adapted the law to modern contexts e.g psychological harm (Chan-Fook), indirect battery (Haystead) & omissions (Santa-Bermudez)

  *weaknesses*: over reliance on judicial decisions rather than statutory guidance creates inconsistency & unpredictability

  *proposed reform*: codify key developments into statute to provide clear & consistent legal guidance
• (General evaluation of NFO) - Flexibility

  *strengths*: adaptability of the law has allowed it to meet societal changes without requiring constant reform

  *weaknesses*: reliance on old statutes & case law is inefficient & makes the law difficult to understand for non-lawyers

  *proposed reform*: update the statute to reflect modern societal expectations & medical advancements
• (General evaluation of NFO) - Terminology

  *strengths*: terms like "assault" & "battery" have been clarified through case laws (Fagan, Collins)

  *weaknesses*: outdated terms like "grievous", "maliciously" & "occasioning" are no longer commonly used or understood adding complexity

  *proposed reform*: replace outdated vocab with simpler, modern terms to improve accessability e.g "causing harm" instead of occasioning ABH
• (General evaluation of NFO) - Offence Overlap

  *strengths*: judicial interpretation has resolved some issues e.g clarifying that "inflict" & "cause" have the same meaning (Ireland, Burstow)

  *weaknesses*: there are significant overlaps between offences e.g s47 & s20 create inconsistencies in charging and sentencing decisions

  *proposed reform*: introduce a clear hierarchy of offences to ensure proportionality & consistency in the legal framework
• (General evaluation of NFO) - Sentencing

  *strengths*: the higher maximum sentence for s18 reflects it's greater moral culpability (blame)

  *weaknesses*: sentencing parity between s47 & s20 both max 5 years imprisonment undermines proportionality and fails to reflect harm severity

  *proposed reform*: create a revised sentencing structure that reflects harm severity & the defendant's culpability (blame)
• (Assault & Battery common law evaluation) - Definition

  *strengths*: the definition of assault & battery are now well established in case law

  *weaknesses*: the term "common assault" causes confusion as it includes assault & battery despite them being distinct offences

  *proposed reform*: replace assault & battery with a single statutory offence encompassing both elements - Law commission (LC) report 218
• (Assault & Battery common law evaluation) - Judicial development

  *strengths*: the law has expanded to include indirect applications of force (Haystead) & omissions (Santa-Bermudez) which shows flexibility

  *weaknesses*: the lack of statutory definitions means the scope of these offences depends entirely on on judicial interpretation leading to inconsistencies

  *proposed reform*: codify definitions & developments into a single statute to improve clarity & reliance on case law
• (Assault & Battery common law evaluation) - Terminology

  *strengths*: courts have provided flexibility in interpreting "immediate" (Smith) enabling the law to apply to modern scenarios like stalking

  *weaknesses*: term "immediate" is still ambigious as seen in (R v Ireland) where letters caused apprehension but not necessarily of immediate harm (force)

  *proposed reform*: clearly define "immediate" in statutory language to ensure consistency & understanding
• (s47 - assault occasioning ABH evaluation) - Judicial development

  *strengths*: courts have adapted ABH to include psychological harm (Chan-Fook) & non traditional injuries like cutting hair (DPP v Smith) showing responsiveness to modern society

  *weaknesses*: there is overlap between s47 & s20 as both can involve similiar injuries, leading to inconsistent charging decisions

  *proposed reform*: replace s47 with a new offence of "intentional or reckless injury" (LC report 218) which would clearly distinguish it from s20
• (s47 - assault occasioning ABH evaluation) - Mens rea

  *strengths*: (Savage & Parmenter) clarified that the mens rea for ABH requires intent or recklessness for the assault, not the harm caused

  *weaknesses*: there is no mens rea required for the harm caused which can be unfair to defendants who didn't forsee such harm (R v Savage)

  *proposed reform*: align the mens rea with the harm caused ensuring fairness & proportionality in liability
• (s47 - assault occasioning ABH evaluation) - Sentencing

  *strengths*: max sentence (5 years) is disproportionate for minor injuries compared to the harm in s20 offences

  *weaknesses*: this parity fails to reflect the difference in severity between ABH & GBH offences

  *proposed reform*: create a revised sentencing structure to reflect differences in harm severity & culpability (guilt)
• (s20 - GBH or wounding evaluation) - Judicial flexibility

  *strengths*: GBH has been expanded to include serious psychological harm (Burstow), biological harm (Dica) & cumulative injuries (Brown & Stratton) keeping the law relevant

  *weaknesses*: no mens rea required for the serious harm caused (Mowatt) which may lead to unfairness for defendants who didn't foresee such harm

  *proposed reform*: replace s20 with "reckless serious injury" (LC report 218) requiring mens rea for the serious harm caused
• (s20 - GBH or wounding evaluation) - Overlap

  *strengths*: distinction between "inflict" & "cause" has been clarified (Ireland) resolving some ambiguities

  *weaknesses*: overlap with s47 creates inconsistency in charging decisions particulary for minor injuries

  *proposed reform*: introduce clear threesholds to differentiate offences based on harm severity
• (s20 - GBH or wounding evaluation) - Terminology

  *strengths: terms like "inflict" & "grievous" are outdated & not reflective of modern language

  *weaknesses*: this makes the offence less accessible to the public & complicates legal proceedings

  *proposed reform*: modernise language to improve understanding e.g "causing serious harm" instead of "inflicting grievous bodily harm"
• (s20 - GBH or wounding evaluation) - Sentencing

  *strengths*: max sentence (5 years) is suitable for some cases but fails to distinguish GBH from ABH in sentencing severity

  *weaknesses*: this parity undermines proportionality & deters fair sentencing practices

  *proposed reform*: create a logical sentencing hierarchy to reflect the seriousness of offences
• (s18 - GBH with intent evaluation) - Mens rea

  *strengths*: specific intent requirement for s18 GBH provides clear distinctions from other offences, ensuring higher culpability (blame) for the defendants e.g (Taylor)

  *weaknesses*: use of recklessness in resisting arrest cases (Morrison) lowers the mens rea requirement ; creates inconsistencies & blurs the offence's mens rea requirement

  *proposed reform*: remove recklessness for resisting arrest from s18 & create a specific offence for injuries caused during resistance
• (s18 - GBH with intent evaluation) - Hierarchy

  *strengths*: recognised as the most serious non fatal offence, reflecting it's severity through a max life sentence

  *weaknesses*: the term "maliciously" is redundant (unnecessary) when intent is already required, adding unnecessary complexity

  *proposed reform*: replace s18 with "intentional serious injury" (LC report 218) to remove ambiguity & improve clarity
• (s18 - GBH with intent evaluation) - Terminology

  *strengths*: judicial interpretation has resolved some ambiguities such as "causing" (Ireland)

  *weaknesses*: the distinction between "causing" (s18) & "inflicting" (s20) is confusing & unnecessary

  *proposed reform*: use consistent terminology across offences to simplify & unify the statutory language