Actus Reus + men's rea

• Why are the boundaries between battery and actual bodily harm, and between actual and grievous bodily harm, considered vague??

  The boundaries are vague even with the assistance of CPS charging standards, and there's potential for overlap between s39 and s47 since the threshold of harm that qualifies as actual bodily harm is very low, as stated in R v Miller.
• What is the significance of the term 'wound' in sections 18 and 20 of the OAPA 1861??

  Wounding is not defined in the Act, but it's interpreted to mean breaking both layers of the skin. Even a trivial prick of the victim's finger can amount to a s20 offence, though charging standards recommend s47 for such minor wounds. The linking of grievous bodily harm and wounding in the same sections is considered misleading.
• What mismatch exists between the mens rea and actus reus of sections 18, 20, and 47 of the OAPA 1861??

  The mens rea for several offences does not match the actus reus, leading to a failure to conform to the "correspondence principle." For example, a person who does not foresee any harm can be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Savage), and a person who foresees only slight injury can be convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm. This mismatch has been criticized as it fails to match the punishment to the culpability of the defendant.