ABH Evaluation

• ABH Strength

  Sliding scale of punishment so more serious offences have a worse punishment.
• ABH Strength

  OAPA around for over 150 years and established case law that works alongside it to give additional clarification/definitions the statute doesn't provide.
• ABH Strength

  New case law can set precedent if needed, system works.
• ABH Weakness

  Same as assault/battery.
• ABH Weakness

  Out of date. When the act was drafted it said 'bodily' harm, what about mental harm?
• ABH Weakness

  Not designed to work as one coherent hierarchy of offences, accordingly there is not a logical sentencing structure that reflects the seriousness of each offence.

  Little difference between battery and ABH but big difference in sentencing - ABH = 5 years, battery = 6 months.
• ABH Weakness

  Same mens rea assault/battery but harsher sentence.
• ABH Weakness

  Same maximum sentence as s20 (5 years) but less harm required for s47. Does not reflect blameworthiness.
• ABH Weakness

  Does not conform to the 'correspondence principle' - defendant can be guilty of s47 without intending injury.
• ABH Reforms

  1998 draft bill in Home Office Consultation Document. Set out 4 main offences - Clause 3 created offence of intentional or reckless injury to replace s47.
• ABH Reforms

  Law Commission 2015 - Supports other reform. D guilty if intentionally or recklessly causes injury to another person.
• ABH Reforms

  Keep maximum sentence at 5 years.