Evaluation of S.47

• What are the 3 problems with S.47?

  • Need for a starter offence
  • Overlap with Battery
  • No definition of 'assault' or 'ABH'
• Why is the need for a starter a problem?

  P - The word assault can mean either battery or assault

  D - Common law refers to assault or battery as common assault when they are two separate offences

  E - Two different word with the same meaning, leads to confusion

  EE - Should separate the 2 offences so there is no need for a starter

  WDP - Creates clarity and is more morally fair
• Why is the Overlap with battery a problem?

  P - No clear difference division between battery (touch) or ABH (more than insignificant)

  D - No consistency, as one suffering with 'minor physical injuries' could be prosecuted as battery or ABH

  E - Causes problems with 'fair' labelling. Bringing uncertainty as D can face up to max 5 years for an offence needing max 6 months

  EE - Should separate by providing a list of injuries that could fall under the new S.47

  WDP - Makes it clearer & fairer as it is morally right as D is charged for the right offence
• Why is no definition for assault or ABH a problem?

  P - the act doesn't define so they rely on case law

  D - More reliance on judges interpretations and opinions E.g. Literal meaning of ABH is only 'bodily' harm which implies it is physical but since Chan Fook it includes psychiatric harm

  E - However, this could be seen as a positive as cases update the law to modernise it, taking tings into account

  EE - But this is a long wait as it relies on cases, so it would be quicker if the courts changed