Evaluation

• Introduction

  The Non-Fatal Offences (NFOs) have been without large scale reform for over 150 years. The Law Commission (LC) have made numerous suggestions for change due to overwhelming problems with the law, and many of these would be desirable, as suggested by Professor JC Smith (Chair of the LC during the NFO consultation).
• Professor JC Smiths opinion of NFOs law:

  ”The law on the Non-fatal Offences are a ragbag of offences brought together from a wide variety of sources with no attempt to introduce consistency as to substance or form.”
• The LC say the OAPA is inconsistent in 2 ways

  1. Content / substance
  2. Structure / form
• Assault


  P: Assault is confusing for lay people

  N: Law is difficult to understand, leads to problems when reporting crime, public doesn’t know common offences

  LC: Change names of assault to threatened assault and battery to physical assault.

  L: Link to the question.
• s47 ABH


  P: It goes against the principle of correspondence.

  N: The AR is more important than the MR = unfairness.

  LC: Replace s47 with aggravated assault and causing injury.

  L: Link back to the question.
• s18 and 20 sentences

  P: Massive difference between their max sentences.

  N: s18 - life s20 - 5 years = unfairness, s18 has the same max as murder

  LC: increase s20 to 7 years = fairer

  L: Link back to the question.
• Wounding


  P: It’s not a very sensible offence

  N: found in s18 and 20 - suggests it’s as bad as GBH, which it’s not. = misleading

  LC: Removed wounding from the law = effective law

  L: Link to question
• Bodily Harm


  P: ABH and GBH both use the term bodily = confusing

  N: Many injuries not about the body such as psychiatric harm.

  LC: change “bodily harm” to “injury” = broader term

  L: Link back to question.
• Heavy reliance on common law

  P: Not many statutory definitions

  N: Parliament‘s intent not fulfilled, Parliamentary Supremacy

  LC: Statute passed by Parliament = clarity and rigidity

  L: Link back to Question