S.47 ABH

• Old and Antiquated:

  Although unlike assault and battery, ABH is defined in Parliament. This is good as under the constitution and the separation of powers theory, Parliament should be making the law and Judges should just be applying the law. Judge-made law also goes against democracy as MPs are voted in to make the law.
• Old and Antiquated:

  Parliamentary law creates prospective law and this is fair as unlike common law, there is prior awareness of the law before it has come into force. The OAPA was created in 1861 and was actually consolidation of much older law. The wording is now antiquated and outdated for 21st century usage.
• Wording:

  'bodily harm'

  The term 'bodily harm' stated in the Act is too narrow for modern usage as it just means harm to the body.However, judges are defining 'bodily harm' broadly and taking into account medical and sociological developments, for example, there has been clarification through cases like Smith, where cutting hair was also considered 'bodily harm' and so now includes loss of comfort.
• Wording:

  This restrictive wording has meant psychiatric harm, and disease transmission have also had to be determined as actual bodily harm through costly appeals in cases like Burstow and Dica. In T v DPP, momentary loss of consciousness was also considered by judges as ABH.