ABH s.47 Evaluation

• Outdated

  • Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - complex and outdated in language
  • 164 years ago, out of touch with society
  • words such as 'whosoever' and 'occasioning' - not regularly used, problematic as understanding meaning may be interpreted different to what Parliament meant
  • C.A - 'occasioning' was clarified to mean 'cause'
• Lack of Definitions

  • lack of clarity surrounding actus reus
  • definition of 'assault', Judges had to determine what it meant
  • no definition of 'actual bodily harm' - originally, 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V' R v Miller, redefined definition to include physical and psychiatric injury in R v Chan-Fook
  • 'bodily' - wide interpretation, depart from Parliaments intention (Smith)
  • Judges should apply law, Parliament create law
  • breach of separation of powers
• Sentencing

  • illogical
  • maximum sentence of s.20 is 5 years, same for s.47
  • ABH is classed as less serious that GBH or wounding
  • sentencing should reflect this
  • reflect difference in seriousness
• Correspondence Theory

  • complex mens rea of s.47
  • mens rea for assault or battery is sufficient
  • d is punished for a crime they may not have wanted to commit and receives a significantly higher sentence
  • question if it is morally justifiable to convict d when they intended or was subjectively reckless to commit an assault or battery
  • however, the law keeps society safe so it needs strict laws
  • ensure justice