inconsitency between offences

• section 47 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861 has the same mens rea for an assault or battery. it doesn't require the defendant to intend or even realise that there is a risk of injury. This appears unjust because section 47 of the 1861 act has a maximum of 5 years imprisonment while assault and battery have a 6 month maximum of imprisonment. as the outcome of the attack dictates the offence, there is no need for separate offences.
• it is unjust that a person who causes a small cut can be charged wit sections 20 or 18 of the offences against the person act 1861 instead of section 47 of the same legislation; this is because section 20 refers to wound or grievous bodily harm, yet there are very different levels of wound and many of them do not equate to serious harm. Currently we have to rely on the prosecution to choose an appropriate offence and then the court to apply a relevant sentence within the range permissible for the offence.
• The maximum sentences for sections 47 and 20 of the offences against the person act 1861 is the same, yet section 20 is meant to be more serious than section 47 as it requires more serious injuurty. section 20 requires the defendant to intend or be reckless as to causing the victim some harm whereas for section 47 it is not necessary to prove the defendant had any higher level of men's rea than that for assault or battery. it seems unjust that these two offences carry the same maximum penalty when the levels of blameworthiness are so different. there is no clear hierarchy of offences.