Non-fatal offences Essay:

• One of the advantages of the offences against the person act (OAPA) is that “There are few pieces of legislation which shows the way in which our legal system can cope with an out-of-date framework better than the OAPA (1861)” This is stated by the Oxford Royal academy. This is due to the legislation still working on a day to day basis because there has been many judicial interpretations of the words make in the act.
• Also the CPS knows what amounts to that offence which makes it easy to interpret. Furthermore there is large amounts of sentencing guidelines which determines what offence amounts to what prison sentence to give. (Part 2)
• However, there are many areas of the law that has caused significant problems. An example is whether inflicting actual bodily harm could cover the situation of infecting another person with a disease. The courts filled this gap in the cases such as R V Dica (2004) and R V Goulding (2014). These were cases about whether infecting someone with HIV or genital herpes could come within the wounding of inflicting GBH onto another person.
• This shows that there is many cases where the judges having to break the separation of power principle which states that the judges should be applying the law rather than interpreting the law. This finally shows that this Act is majorly out of date due to the act being made 150 years ago.
• Another point of law that regards non-fatal offences is the inconsistency and confusion when applying the law. An example of this is section 47 has the same men’s rea as for an assault or battery. It doesn’t require the defendant to intend or even realise that there is a risk of any injury. This offence carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, while assault and battery only carries a maximum of six months’ imprisonment. This shows us that the outcome of the attack dictates the offence.
• However, the jury is directed when interpreting the cases to determine whether it is GBH or ABH is whether it is really serious harm or is it some harm. This enables the lay people to understand what offence that they have committed. This reduces the amount of confusion when they are trying to apply to the cases that are brought in front of them, also it stops anyone from receiving unjust outcomes. Furthermore, this stops the separation of powers from being broken because the lawyers and solicitors don’t have to interpret the law to the client’s cases.
• The third point of law regarding non-fatal offences is need for modern, simplified language. One of the disadvantage of this is that there needs for a reform of the act to include more modern and simplified language. For example in section 20 uses the word “maliciously”. In modern language today it suggests someone is acting deliberately and ill-will to the victim.
• Yet the definition in the act has been interpreted as to be that the defendant has either intended to do the type of harm that was done or was reckless as to whether that type of harm occurred. The law commission has recommended that the word “reckless” should be used. This makes sense given that if you intend something then you must have been more than reckless.