age and language

• What did the Law Commission say about the efficiency of non-fatal offences??

  The Law Commission described the non-fatal offences as "inefficient as a vehicle for controlling violence" where "many aspects of the law are still obscure and its application is erratic."
• What is one issue with the language used in the OAPA 1861, according to Professor C. Smith??

  The language of the OAPA 1861 is “complicated, obscure, and old-fashioned.”
• Why is the language used in the OAPA 1861 considered outdated??

  The 1861 Act is nearly 150 years old, with words like "maliciously" and "grievous" considered out of date. Terms like "bodily harm" include mental harm, and even lawyers and judges often use "assault" when they mean "battery."
• How was the word “maliciously” interpreted in the case of Cunningham??

  In Cunningham, “maliciously” was interpreted as including recklessness, whereas its modern meaning would suggest bad motive or wickedness.
• What confusion arose from the use of the word “inflict” in s20 as opposed to “cause” in s18??

  It was originally thought that “inflict” required an assault or battery, but cases like Ireland and Burstow clarified that “inflict” and “cause” have the same meaning, leading to confusion.
• What implication does the interpretation of "inflict" and "cause" have on s20 and s47??

  The interpretation suggests that s20 can be committed without an assault or battery, whereas s47 requires one.