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Due to it being a 19th century law, it is outdated.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 OffencesAgainst the PersonAct1861" 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 actusreus and mensrea
The Home Office report also proposed a new offence, aggravated assault, which would carry a higher maximum sentence compared to common assault.