Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Non fatal Offences [1861], s47 MR can only require common assault.…

- - - - Hard for judges to interpret law
        
        This can lead to wrong decision made leading to unjust punishment and a higher amount of appeal which could be avoided
        
        'malicious' used to define s20 and s18.
        Definition given in R v Cunningham as either intention or subjective recklessness however different from current dictionary definition which implies deliberate
        
        'actual' used in s47 conceals a wide range of which harm can be done
        
        Chan Fook decided psychiatric harm can be actual as long as it isn't too trivia= recognisable psychiatric
        
        Smith cutting a substantial amount of hair amounts to ABH, despite the fact there is not physical harm
        
        inflicting disease sufficent R v Dica
        
        Loss of consciousness sufficient DPP v T
        
        DPP v Smith GBH = Really serious harm
        Saunders = Just equal "serious harm" - uncertainty on the level of harm required due to contradicting and vague statements for cases
        
        Sentencing guidelines have been made to outline the offences which make up different levels of harm and give the law some certainty.
        
        Shows that the wording of the act is insufficient for our modern law and needs to be updated to give clarity or else there will be a reliance of case law
        
        This is undesired as it means Parliamentary sovereignty isn't upheld and separation of powers is breached given the judiciary too much power
        
        Legislation created before good understanding of mental health problems that we have today. The act only refers to 'actual bodily harm' and does not mention any mental harm as a result uncertainty behind whether mental harm included R v Chan Fook and R v Burstow
      - Out of date wording contradicts the rule of law which states that the law must be ascertainable
        
        Charging standards have created a list of harm for each offence in order to try to achieve certainty - shows lack of clarity in statute
  - - - S47 = R v Donovan harm is "more than transient or trifling"
        = R v Miller "interfere with health and comfort"
        
        MR difference ABH requires MR for common assault or battery
      - S20 = DPP v Smith GBH as really serious harm
        = Moriarty v Brooks Breaking the continuity of the whole skin
        
        MR for basic intent for some harm
      - Clear vast difference in the required AR for s20 and s47 yet same punishment
        
        The different levels of MR also reveal the varying severities therefore the same sentence of punishment is absurd
        
        S47 can arise for an assault - apprehension of unlawful physical force
        
        Commentators call to increase the minimum sentence GBH
        
        Also called for difference sentence between battery and assault. Therefore there would be a clearer hierarchy of offences and sentencing of offenders
- - - - Contradicts rule of law as law is not ascertainable enough to ensure correct ruling in cases
      - Tuberville v Savage but added to R v Light depending on circumstances - if V's fear is strong enough words cannot negate assault
- - - - Came with clearly defined MR which would allow the law to be applied clearly and fairly in all cases. Change wording so mental injury applied
        
        Fixed many problems with the law as it has clear hierarchy and increased sentences for more serious offences