illogical sentencing and application to the real world

• Why is the sentencing for actual bodily harm (s.47) and grievous bodily harm (s.20) considered illogical??

  Both offences have a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment, even though one is more serious than the other. This lack of proportionality in sentencing is criticized, and legal philosopher HLS Hart argues that injuries at the lower level of s47 and those charged under s39 CJA 1988 are morally similar, highlighting the unjust disparity in sentencing.
• How have modern situations influenced the interpretation of non-fatal offences??

  Before R v Burstow, non-fatal offences did not recognize psychiatric harm as serious harm under s20 or s18. Difficulties in such cases led to amendments in legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Judges also had to further develop s20 in the case of Dica to address issues related to the prevention of the spread of STDs.
• What is the status of the defence of consent in relation to non-fatal offences??

  Consent is not recognized as a defence to any assault causing actual bodily harm or worse, subject to recognized exceptions. These exceptions are considered anomalous; for example, boxing is an exception, but sadomasochism is not. However, the "victim" should be allowed to make their own choices.