s20 Evaluation

• s20 Strengths

  Case law meets shortfalls of statute. GBH developed to include biological harm (Dica) and psychological harm (Burstow).
• s20 Strengths

  Actus reus of GBH recognises the age and health of the victim (Bollom).
• s20 Weakness

  No statutory definition for 'grievous' 'bodily' harm - set out in case law which could lead to inconsistent outcomes.
• s20 Weakness

  Language old fashioned - 'maliciously' not defined.
• s20 Weakness

  Actus reus issue. 'Inflict' in s20 and 'cause' in s18 but Burstow ruled they have the same meaning.
• s20 Weakness

  Sentencing issues. Little difference between s18/20 but huge disparity in maximum sentence. 5 years for s20 but up to life for s18.
• s20 Weakness

  Wounding not defined. Can a person be charged of pricking the victims finger with a pin?
• s20 Weakness

  Does not conform to 'correspondence principle' as can be guilty of s20 without intending or being reckless as to causing serious harm (Parmenter).
• s20 Reforms

  1998 draft bill in Home Office Consultation Document. Set out 4 main offences - Clause 2 created offence of reckless serious injury to replace s20.
• s20 Reforms

  Law Commission 2015 supports other reform. D guilty if he recklessly causes serious injury (higher level of mens rea than current law, has to be risk of serious injury).
• s20 Reforms

  Max sentence of 7 years, 2 years more than current.