Criminal Law: Analysis of Non-Fatal Offences and Reform

This essay provides an analysis of non-fatal offences in criminal law, focusing on the application of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 to a given case. It examines the offences of battery, assault, and grievous bodily harm, assessing the criminal liability of the individuals involved. The essay discusses the legal definitions of these offences, citing relevant case law to support its arguments. Furthermore, it highlights the need for reforms within the Act, addressing issues such as outdated language, inconsistencies in sentencing, and the complexity of the legal framework. The essay concludes by summarizing the criminal liabilities of the individuals and emphasizing the importance of clarity and proportionality in criminal law related to non-fatal offences. The essay also addresses theft as another offence committed in the case. The author proposes that the Act should be amended to provide a more clear and straightforward approach to the offences and their consequences.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
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)

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

3CRIMINAL LAW
was hit by Alex in the eye. The swelling of eye of Ben was resulted from the assault of Alex.
Therefore, Alex can be convicted of actual bodily harm.
The issue is to determine whether the fact that Ben ran over to where Alex was lying
and stamped on his leg and broke it, was a grievous bodily harm under Section 18 or 20 of
the Act. Grievous bodily harm is an offence which is considered more serious than any other
harm and it requires a serious mens rea and injury. The harm may be caused with or without
intention. Section 18 of the Act makes it an offence to intentionally cause a grievous bodily
harm to a person. In R v Jenkins [2002] VSCA 0224, it was said that a grievous bodily harm
may be caused where a person has directly and intentionally inflicted the assault on the
victim8. Therefore, it can be proved that Ben had caused grievous bodily injury to Alex. The
mens rea of Ben was intended to cause a harm to Alex, which resulted into breaking his legs.
Hence, Ben can be charged for grievous bodily harm.
It has to be decided whether Ben committed a theft or robbery when he noticed the
£10 note and shouted that he would be keeping that. The Theft Act 1968 has mentioned under
Section 1 that a crime of theft shall occur if a person dishonestly appropriates a property of
another intending to deprive the person from the property. To prove the actus reus of theft,
the property belonging to other must be appropriated. It is one of the essential for the mens
rea of theft that the defendant should have dishonestly appropriated the property. In this
context, Ben was aware that the money belonged to Alex he had intentionally and dishonestly
appropriated it. Therefore, the activities of Alex can be considered to be a crime of theft.
The Offences against the Person Act needs to be amended as the language of the Act
is outdated. The problems related to this Act is that it contains several related but different
situations of offences within a specific Section. Section 20 considered four different
situations in an offence. The Act should be amended to avoid the complexity and different
8 R v Jenkins [2002] VSCA 0224

4CRIMINAL LAW
scenario of offences having common theme should be set out in different sections. The Act
provides the same amount punishment for both the Section 20 and Section 47, that is, a
sentence for five years. Section 20 should be listed as a more severe crime. The less serious
offences such as assault and actual bodily harm is punished with a six month sentence. It can
be sometimes difficult to decide the amount or degree of injury, hence, the imposing of
punishment can create a confusion. The existing provisions of Section 20 requires a
reasonable foreseeable harm by the defendant to the victim to hold him liable. To convict a
person under Section 20, intentional or reckless malice needs to be proved. The Act should be
reformed in such a way to reflect the seriousness of the crime in the sentences imposed on a
person. The charges for crime and the punishment should be proportionate. At the same time,
the new reform should ensure that it does not override any other legislation. Therefore, the
Act should be amended so as to provide a simple and clear concepts about the offences and
their consequences.
Therefore, from the above made discussion, it can be concluded that the law related to
non-fatal offences against a person, such as assault, battery and others as discussed in the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is applied in this case. In this case, Alex and Ben has
acquired criminal liability under the Act for causing assault and battery. Ben shall firstly be
criminally liable for battery and causing grievous bodily harm. Whereas, Alex might be liable
for causing an assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Ben simultaneously. Ben
has acquired an additional liability for theft for taking away with the money of Alex. The
charges against Alex and Ben would be dealt in the Magistrate Court.

5CRIMINAL LAW
References
Allen, Michael. Textbook on criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Offences against the Person Act, 1861
Ormerod, David C., et al. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. Oxford University Press, USA,
2015.
R v Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534
R v Jenkins [2002] VSCA 0224
R v Miller 1954 2 Q.B. 282
R v Thomas (1985)
R v Wilson [1995] 1 WLR 493