Evaluation of NFO

• Majority of the non-fatal offences are found in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Due to it being a 19th century law, it is outdated.
• The OAPA is also a consolidation statute which means its a combination of laws.
• The sections in the OAPA do not follow an order of seriousness either. It goes from s18, to s20, to s47.
• The Law Commission report in 2015 suggested a law reform, No 361.
• 2015 Law Report: "There is no apparent logic to the grading of offences. Lack of structure can make it harder for lay people to understand"
• It is also said that the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has too many sections and offences.
• Offences like bigamy are included in OAPA and this can make it confusing to people because there is no correlation between these offences.
• A 1988 report said: "Not a coherent statement of the law but a consolidation of much older law...and that is now in urgent need of reform."
• The Law Commission also said that some offences in the act are no longer necessary. For example: crime of assaulting a magistrate or another person who is in exercise of his or her duty preserving a wreck.
• The non-fatal offences are also split up over two different acts: the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Splitting the offences over two different acts can lead to confusion.
• Some definitions for the offences are not found in the statute themselves but in case law.
• Battery's definition is found in Collins v Wilcock: "the actual infliction of unlawful force on another"
• ABH can also be found in Miller or Dawson: "Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort of the victim"
• Another question is: what amounts to Grievous Bodily Harm?
• It was originally "really serious harm" (DPP v Smith) but that changed in Saunders because the word "really" doesn't need to be included.
• The definition of wounding can also be confusing. It comes from JCC v Eisenhower: "break in both layers of the skin".
• However, case law have had some positive effects on the non-fatal offences.
• The cases of Ireland and Burstow, it said that "bodily harm" in s18, s20, and s47, must include psychiatric harm.
• The case of Dica said that GBH can also be biological harm, which is things like passing on a STI.
• There is also a discrepancy in sentencing. s20 is considered more "serious" than s47, yet they have the same sentence of 5 years max imprisonment.
• s20 and s18 also have the same actus reus, just different mens reas, just the jump for punishment goes from 5 years to life.
• In 1988, the Home Office released a report: "Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1861" which proposed how a new law should work.
• The Home Office report said the the new law should have a clear hierarchy which should reflect:

  • The harm caused
  • The culpability of the defendant
  • The maximum sentence
  • A clear and accurate label for conduct
  • A clear actus reus and mens rea
• The Home Office report also proposed a new offence, aggravated assault, which would carry a higher maximum sentence compared to common assault.