Non-Fatal Offences and the Need for Reforms in the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861
Added on 2023-06-03
6 Pages1752 Words301 Views
|
|
|
Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1CRIMINAL LAW
Non-fatal offences can be referred to an attack caused by a person to another causing
an injury but do not result into death. There are various forms of non-fatal offences, such as:
assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, grievous body harm, and wounding
and grievous body harm with an intention1. Section 20 of the Offences against the Person
Act, 1861 provides a wider aspect on inflicting bodily harm with or without the use of
weapon2. To make it morally acceptable a clear hierarchy of offences should be set out to
amend the law of offences related to assault and battery. The purpose of this essay is to make
a brief discussion of the some of the aspects of non-fatal offences in terms of the facts of this
case. This report shall identify the problems with the offence of section 20 and set out the
need of reforms of this Act to make the provisions of it more clear and acceptable.
The first issue in this case was to determine whether the act of Ben shoving Jon from
behind does amount to battery. Battery is an offence under common law where an unlawful
force is applied to another. There is no need to prove physical injury or harm in a battery. In
the case of R v Thomas (1985) the Court decided that holding the bottom line of the skirt of a
woman can amount to battery even if any harm or injury was not caused to her3. Section 20 of
the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 maintains that if a person, with or without any
weapon, causes an unlawful bodily harm on another, shall be kept in the penal servitude for
being guilty of misdemeanour. However, to prove an unlawful force or physical contact to be
a battery, there needs to a mens rea by the party doing such. Actus rea or mens rea to commit
the act is enough to cause battery. In this case, Ben shoved Jon from the behind before going
onto the playground. It can be observed that Ben had unlawfully touched Jon regardless of
the fact that injury was caused to him or not. Hence, Ben shall acquire criminal liability for
committing battery to Jon.
1 Ormerod, David C., et al. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
2 Offences against the Person Act, 1861
3 R v Thomas (1985)
Non-fatal offences can be referred to an attack caused by a person to another causing
an injury but do not result into death. There are various forms of non-fatal offences, such as:
assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, grievous body harm, and wounding
and grievous body harm with an intention1. Section 20 of the Offences against the Person
Act, 1861 provides a wider aspect on inflicting bodily harm with or without the use of
weapon2. To make it morally acceptable a clear hierarchy of offences should be set out to
amend the law of offences related to assault and battery. The purpose of this essay is to make
a brief discussion of the some of the aspects of non-fatal offences in terms of the facts of this
case. This report shall identify the problems with the offence of section 20 and set out the
need of reforms of this Act to make the provisions of it more clear and acceptable.
The first issue in this case was to determine whether the act of Ben shoving Jon from
behind does amount to battery. Battery is an offence under common law where an unlawful
force is applied to another. There is no need to prove physical injury or harm in a battery. In
the case of R v Thomas (1985) the Court decided that holding the bottom line of the skirt of a
woman can amount to battery even if any harm or injury was not caused to her3. Section 20 of
the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 maintains that if a person, with or without any
weapon, causes an unlawful bodily harm on another, shall be kept in the penal servitude for
being guilty of misdemeanour. However, to prove an unlawful force or physical contact to be
a battery, there needs to a mens rea by the party doing such. Actus rea or mens rea to commit
the act is enough to cause battery. In this case, Ben shoved Jon from the behind before going
onto the playground. It can be observed that Ben had unlawfully touched Jon regardless of
the fact that injury was caused to him or not. Hence, Ben shall acquire criminal liability for
committing battery to Jon.
1 Ormerod, David C., et al. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
2 Offences against the Person Act, 1861
3 R v Thomas (1985)
2CRIMINAL LAW
It has to be determined whether shouting and swearing by Alex at Ben can be
considered as an assault. Assault is an act committed by a person to intentionally or
recklessly implementing an immediate unlawful force on another. Under Section 47 of the
Offences against the Person Act, 1861, an offence shall be deemed to have been committed
by a person who has intentionally or recklessly assaulted another. There needs to be a hurt to
interfere in the comfort or health of the victim. In an assault, the actus reus to commit an
unlawful act that may lead the victim to an apprehension that something might happen to him
which is harmful or bad4. Thus the fear or threat of violence can amount to an assault. In R v
Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534, the court held that silent phone calls may cause a fear or threat to
person, which may lead to an assault5. The victim must assume an unlawful violence to his
comfort or health. In R v Wilson [1995] 1 WLR 493 the court decided that words can even
amount to an offence in some situations6. In this case Alex caused a shouted at Ben which
was followed by Alex to hit Ben in the eye. This caused a fear of violence for Ben at made
him apprehend that he might face some hurt. Hence, it Alex can be held liable for causing an
assault to Ben.
To address whether Alex’s elbow hits Ben in the eye amounts to assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, Section 47 of the Act needs to be explained. Section 47 of this Act reads
that a person shall be convicted or kept in penal servitude for committing an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. The actus reus for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
must be resulted from an assault or battery leading to an injury classified as an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. Actual bodily harm should cause a disruption to the health
and comfort of the victim as decided in the case of R v Miller 1954 2 Q.B. 2827. Here, Ben
4 Allen, Michael. Textbook on criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
5 R v Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534
6 R v Wilson [1995] 1 WLR 493
7 R v Miller 1954 2 Q.B. 282
It has to be determined whether shouting and swearing by Alex at Ben can be
considered as an assault. Assault is an act committed by a person to intentionally or
recklessly implementing an immediate unlawful force on another. Under Section 47 of the
Offences against the Person Act, 1861, an offence shall be deemed to have been committed
by a person who has intentionally or recklessly assaulted another. There needs to be a hurt to
interfere in the comfort or health of the victim. In an assault, the actus reus to commit an
unlawful act that may lead the victim to an apprehension that something might happen to him
which is harmful or bad4. Thus the fear or threat of violence can amount to an assault. In R v
Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534, the court held that silent phone calls may cause a fear or threat to
person, which may lead to an assault5. The victim must assume an unlawful violence to his
comfort or health. In R v Wilson [1995] 1 WLR 493 the court decided that words can even
amount to an offence in some situations6. In this case Alex caused a shouted at Ben which
was followed by Alex to hit Ben in the eye. This caused a fear of violence for Ben at made
him apprehend that he might face some hurt. Hence, it Alex can be held liable for causing an
assault to Ben.
To address whether Alex’s elbow hits Ben in the eye amounts to assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, Section 47 of the Act needs to be explained. Section 47 of this Act reads
that a person shall be convicted or kept in penal servitude for committing an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. The actus reus for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
must be resulted from an assault or battery leading to an injury classified as an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. Actual bodily harm should cause a disruption to the health
and comfort of the victim as decided in the case of R v Miller 1954 2 Q.B. 2827. Here, Ben
4 Allen, Michael. Textbook on criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
5 R v Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534
6 R v Wilson [1995] 1 WLR 493
7 R v Miller 1954 2 Q.B. 282
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents