Evaluation of S.20

• What the 3 problems with S.20?

  1. Lack of correspondence
  2. Wound
  3. Proper meaning of inflict
• Why is Wound used a problem?


  P - no statutory meaning and requires case law like Eisenhower to find that it means a break in the layers of the skin

  D - However this seems unjust for a person who caused a small pin prick could be liable for an offence of GBH

  E - The charging standards say that small cuts should be charged under s.47 however it is not legally binding in court and can lead to serious offences as it is open to interpretation.

  E - provide a clear distinction of 'serious injury' for s.20 and s.18 and mere 'injury' to be s.47

  EE - This would make it clear and understandable
• Why is the proper meaning of 'inflict' a problem?

  P - It is unclear whether it means the same as cause in s.18

  D - Until Burstow there was no proper meaning, now there's no requirement for a battery or assault and it can arse from psychiatric harm

  E - It is fairer but it took over 100 years to clarify which evidently meant there's been many inconsistencies

  EE - Law commission 2015 proposed to provide a clear definition of 'causing serious injury'

  WDP - which would make it clear and reduce the misunderstandings
• Why is Lack of correspondence between MR and AR a problem?

  P - AR of s.18 and s.20 are the same but their MR of s.20 = D intended r foresaw 'some harm' whereas the MR for s.18 =the intention serious harm

  D -some injustice as d will be charged with a more serious offence than what they intended or could foresee.

  E - The lack of correspondence make the AR more important than the MR,- morally unfair & no 'fair' labelling

  EE - law commission 2015 report suggested correspondence so to be guilty d would have to recklessly cause serious injury allowing foresight of serious injury not just some.