There to be modernised, this was meant to

There are numerous approaches to evaluate Law and Sentences
on particular non-fatal offenses one way in doing so is assessing the criticisms
of non-fatal offences. The first criticism is the language of the laws being old
(in the Act itself) as well as confusing. For example, in GBH section 20 and 18
it uses terms such as “Malicious” in modern day society nobody uses words like
this, this therefore doesn’t seem to be modernised, this was meant to define to
be: “Recklessly” but gives the impression it infers committing something in a
nasty/hateful manner, it was meant to be for the Mens Rea, but Mens Res has
been defined as “with intent”. In addition to this, the term “assault” in
modern day society implies physical injuries to a victim after beating them. But,
in terms of law it is just making somebody feel fear, this is misleading so
when a person in court claims they have been assaulted they really mean they
have been a victim of either: GBH, ABH or a Battery depending on the
seriousness of the injuries. Another criticism I am going to talk about is the
fact that Mens Rea in Section 47 doesn’t need any extra Mens Rea, it doesn’t
have the requirement of the defendant to foresee a risk/injury, like in the
case R v Roberts where the defendant
offered to give the victim a lift and then demanded her to have sex with him as
she said no he drove off with her at a high speed leading her to injure herself
by jumping out. The defendant claimed that he was unaware of risks and didn’t
mean for the victim to suffer from ABH, even though he put her in a fearful
state of mind leading to her jumping out of his car. The third criticism I’m
going to talk about is the lack of the seriousness needed in the actual harm
sector in Section 20 GBH, the only thing the prosecution need to show is that
the defendant had intention to cause some harm, which could be the smallest form
of harm. Like in the case R v Mowatt where
the defendant beat the victim unconscious due to the victim confronting the defendant
about the defendant’s partner who helped steal form the victim. It was decided
that the Intention/recklessness to cause a wound and/or GBH doesn’t need
proving. Another criticism I’m going to talk about is the actual offence known
as a “Battery” being misleading. Relating to Battery another criticism is there
is no legal definition to define both “assault & battery” the only thing
close to a definition is the requirements to cause them. Regarding ABH &
GBH the separation doesn’t seem to be visible, it is actual the courts that
make the decision of what causes serious harm, but everyone has different
opinions, especially when both ABH and GBH include psychological pain because
it’s hard to decide what extent of it comes under what offence, with no
boundary as a guidance there will be no proper way in deciding. The final
criticism I will be talking about is using a “wound” to separate Section 18
from 20 being useless as there should only be one Section for GBH because of
the case Moriarty v Brookes where
the defendant hit a customer and used force to remove him from a pub. He was
guilty as he broke the layers of the skin, but compared to a needle prick the
seriousness is clearly different, so I believe if they had one Section they can
easily charge somebody with GBH and giving them a suitable sentence rather that
deciding over a wound.