GBH/Wounding s.20 Evaluations

• Outdated

  • Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - complex and outdated in its language
  • 164 years ago - out of touch with society
  • words such as 'whosoever,' 'maliciously' and 'grievous' - not regularly used, ensure everyone interprets and understands them the same
• Lack Of Definitions

  • lack of clarity for actus reus
  • no definition of wounding in the Act, definition given by judge in JCC v Eisenhower
  • no definition of GBH given, 'really serious harm' DPP v Smith, 'serious harm' R v Saunders
  • focus on bodily harm, development has been piecemeal - developed bit by bit
  • 1861, psychiatric (Burstow) and biological (Dica) GBH would not have been contemplated
  • Judges should apply law, Parliament create
  • breach of separation of powers
• Sentencing

  • illogical
  • maximum sentence of s.20 is 5 years, same as s.47
  • ABH is classed as being less serious than GBH
  • sentencing should reflect the difference in seriousness
  • large gap between s.20 (5 years) and s.18 (life), only difference is mens rea
  • s.20 should be raised to illustrate severity
• Correspondence Theory

  • mens rea of s.20 is complex
  • 'intention or recklessness to inflict some harm albeit minor'
  • a/r - establish wounding or 'really serious harm', m/r 'some harm'
  • d is punished for a crime they did not want to commit and given a significantly higher sentence
  • questionable if it is morally justifiable to convict d if they intended or were reckless to committing 'some harm'
  • law is to keep society safe so strict laws
  • ensure justice is served