Critically Evaluate the Current Law on Non-Fatal offences, and Suggest Any Reforms That You Consider Might Improve the Law

Critically evaluate the current law on non-fatal offences, and suggest any reforms that you consider might improve the law.

The unanimously accepted law on non-fatal offences is in need of reform as it can be unclear as to what certain words mean and words that would be now associated with the antique and obscure language must be replaced as the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 is now considered to be outdated. The main problem with this Act is the Victorian legislation which is rarely used today and it was never intended to be a logical and consistent set of rules applying to non-fatal offences. It was merely intended to bring all the then applicable laws into one Act which is why the sections are so irregular (s47, 20, 18) and don’t follow any number order of hierarchy in respect of the seriousness of the offences. The Act also includes sections as diverse as poisoning and kidnapping which need to be dealt with in different ways and so consequently there is no uniformity of language between the sections. Following the Law Commission Report 1993, it is said to be inefficient as a vehicle for controlling violence and many aspects are still obscure and its application erratic. The non-fatal offences were routinely criticised as being ‘chaotic, unjust, irrational, outdated and unclear.’ Other issues that pursue a need for reform is that poor drafting allows a woeful lack of explanation of mens rea and failure to define terms that are regularly used in statutes and Acts of Parliament causing confusion. Not only this but modern day courts are having to apply law which was drafted in the reign of Queen Victoria to situations created in a very different modern society meaning the law doesn’t always make sense and this can leave a lot of pressure on the judge to make a fair decision but also based on old law.

One of main criticisms is the language used. The key words and phrases used in s47, s20 and s18 are not defined in the statute so need to be explained through case interpretation. The statutory offence terminology such as ‘actual’ ‘grievous’ and ‘bodily harm’ is continually evolving through cases and appeal processes. This leads to an uncertainty in decision making and uncertainty of which words the judges should apply. One of the main issues in regard to non-fatal offences is that the language used is old-fashioned, badly drafted and used inconsistently. Due to words being outdated, the meanings aren’t the same in modern society. This can often cause confusion and means some definitions of words have to be interpreted accordingly by judges as to what they think a word would mean in modern terms. Not only this but words aren’t defined in Acts such as ‘maliciously’ which is used for s18 and s20 so again it is down to case law to interpret what ‘maliciously’ should mean. R v Cunningham 1957 is a case which interprets the word maliciously to cover recklessness; described as a sense of subject awareness of risk. However its modern meaning would normally imply bad motive and wickedness. Another criticism is in s20 where ‘maliciously’ is the only clue as to the mens rea, whereas in s18 GBH the mens rea is made clear by the extra words of ‘with intent’.