Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many of the opinion, Aye (14)
28%
On the contrary, No (23)
46%
Abstain (13)
26%
This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Non-Fatal Offences Reform Bill 2017, TSR Conservative Party



A
BILL
TO

Reform the non-fatal offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—




1: Repeals
(1) Offences against the Person Act 1861 is hereby repealed.
(2) Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 is hereby repealed.

2: Definitions
(1) Intention is where it's the main aim, purpose or desire of the defendant to bring about the result of their act.
(2) Recklessness is where the defendant understands the potential risk of their act and carries out that risk anyway.
(3) Apprehend is to understand, perceive or fear.
(4) Immediate can mean imminent, it need not be at that moment.
(5) Force can mean anything from the merest touch to a push.
(6) Occasion is to cause such harm to occur.
(7) Actual is real or substantial.
(8) Bodily harm can mean anything from physical, biological or psychological harm.
(9) Wound is where the continuity of the skin has been broken.
(10) Grievous means very severe or serious.
(11) Weapon or instrument is any object which can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.

3: Non-fatal Offences
(1) Any person who causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or violence or the recklessness as to such fear being caused shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable for a fine up to but not exceeding £1,500, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
(2) Any person who applies unlawful force or violence upon another person or the recklessness as to such force or violence being applied shall he guilty of an offence and shall be liable for a fine up to but not exceeding £1,500, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
(3) Any person who commits an assault or battery which occasions actual bodily harm or the recklessness as to such harm being caused shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years.
(4) Any person who wounds or causes any grievous bodily harm, with or without a weapon or instrument, or recklessness as to such wounds or grievous bodily harm being caused shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to up to life imprisonment.
(5) Any person who makes a death threat to another, intending to cause the other fear of death, or the recklessness as to such fear being caused shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

4: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Non-fatal Offences Reform Act 2017.

Notes:
Spoiler:
Show




This Act reforms the way that non-fatals are enforced within the court of law. It brings together good points of the old law, new modernised points of law as well as bringing in points of judicial precedent which enabled a more just way of enforcing the law.

- The definition of offences have been more properly defined, removing outdated language and replacing it to make it more comprehensible.

- S18 and S20 OAPA 1861 have also been combined into one offence, also removing the "resisting arrest" element.

- Assault and Battery have been given statutory definitions to make enforcement easier within the court of law.

- Sentencing has been relaxed in order to allow for more discretion on the judge's part, this'll allow for more fair rulings.





0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Nay. If this passes, it is due to the complete lack of a critical eye from those voting in favour. This is a very blunt attempt at reform of a technical area of law. It proposes no new substantial policy and has several huge gaps.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
adam9317- sorry to be a pain but please can you change my vote to an aye?
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Quamquam123)
adam9317- sorry to be a pain but please can you change my vote to an aye?
One abstain changed to an aye
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
adam9317 Could you change my vote to a Nay please?
0
wolfmoon88
Badges: 21
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
adam9317 Could you change my vote to a Nay please? If it isn't already a Nay Thank You!
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
adam9317 Could you kindly change my vote to Abstain please.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
adam9317 Could you change my vote to a Nay please?
One aye to a nay

(Original post by wolfmoon88)
adam9317 Could you change my vote to a Nay please? If it isn't already a Nay Thank You!
One aye to a nay

(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
adam9317 Could you kindly change my vote to Abstain please.
One aye to an abstain



The whips are out in force!
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
RayApparently what are you playing at?
0
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
adam9317 please could you change my vote from aye to nay?
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by zayn008)
adam9317 please could you change my vote from aye to nay?
Which tier whip is it?
2 or 3?
0
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by fleky6910)
Which tier whip is it?
2 or 3?
I wouldn't refer to it as whip, the consequences of the bill were pointed out more carefully and it led to a genuine change of mind, nothing forceful just advisory
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by zayn008)
I wouldn't refer to it as whip, the consequences of the bill were pointed out more carefully and it led to a genuine change of mind, nothing forceful just advisory
I am advising you to vote nay , otherwise you loose or seat or I will remember this next cabinet/shadow cabinet reshuffle .
That is what I am guessing Ray said.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
adam9317 Please change my vote from Aye to Nay please.
0
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by fleky6910)
I am advising you to vote nay , otherwise you loose or seat or I will remember this next cabinet/shadow cabinet reshuffle .
That is what I am guessing Ray said.
Haha maybe they were thinking that in the background and just trying to sel it under "legal advice" 🤔
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by fleky6910)
I am advising you to vote nay , otherwise you loose or seat or I will remember this next cabinet/shadow cabinet reshuffle .
That is what I am guessing Ray said.
I didn't, and never do say anything like that to my MPs you utter irritant.

It was pointed out however by someone who knows much more about the law than me that (although this bill doesn't actually seek to achieve anything of substance) because of the lacksadasical way in which it was written it will leave huge policy gaps which those voting in favour or abstaining such that it may pass are most likely unaware of. These include the offence of committing murder/manslaughter abroad, threatening to kill, threatening the lives of employees by withholding food one is contractually obligated to provide and concealing stillbirth.

It would be absolutely dire for this to pass and it is quite offensive that the Conservative Party are probably banking on the House being ignorant in order to pass a poorly thought out bill. It is especially surprising that anyone who'd consider themselves 'tough on crime' - as opposed to simply 'thoughtful' would not vote 'No' as soon as possible.
2
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by RayApparently)
I didn't, and never do say anything like that to my MPs you utter irritant.

It was pointed out however by someone who knows much more about the law than me that (although this bill doesn't actually seek to achieve anything of substance) because of the lacksadasical way in which it was written it will leave huge policy gaps which those voting in favour or abstaining such that it may pass are most likely unaware of. These include the offence of committing murder/manslaughter abroad, threatening to kill, threatening the lives of employees by withholding food one is contractually obligated to provide and concealing stillbirth.

It would be absolutely dire for this to pass and it is quite offensive that the Conservative Party are probably banking on the House being ignorant in order to pass a poorly thought out bill. It is especially surprising that anyone who'd consider themselves 'tough on crime' - as opposed to simply 'thoughtful' would not vote 'No' as soon as possible.
I don't know why you tag a ton of people in but ok!

Wilhuff Tarkin knows a lot about law and I admit to know **** all about law but there is obviously a whip on this bill.
That was a joke , it wasn't supposed to be irritating. Last time we discussed whips, I remember you jokingly saying that would be something you would say.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by RayApparently)
I didn't, and never do say anything like that to my MPs you utter irritant.

It was pointed out however by someone who knows much more about the law than me that (although this bill doesn't actually seek to achieve anything of substance) because of the lacksadasical way in which it was written it will leave huge policy gaps which those voting in favour or abstaining such that it may pass are most likely unaware of. These include the offence of committing murder/manslaughter abroad, threatening to kill, threatening the lives of employees by withholding food one is contractually obligated to provide and concealing stillbirth.

It would be absolutely dire for this to pass and it is quite offensive that the Conservative Party are probably banking on the House being ignorant in order to pass a poorly thought out bill. It is especially surprising that anyone who'd consider themselves 'tough on crime' - as opposed to simply 'thoughtful' would not vote 'No' as soon as possible.
Hear hear Prime Minister.

In fact, for that comment adam9317 please change my vote to a nay.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by fleky6910)
I don't know why you tag a ton of people in but ok!

Wilhuff Tarkin knows a lot about law and I admit to know **** all about law but there is obviously a whip on this bill.
That was a joke , it wasn't supposed to be irritating. Last time we discussed whips, I remember you jokingly saying that would be something you would say.
I tagged those people because it's not only members of my party that might want to change their vote. I can't believe a Kipper and old colleague like RotatingPhasor would be ok with this passing.

You're probably misremembering what I said anyway but regardless it was jokingly because it's not something I'd ever say. No successful party leader would say something like that. And Labour has a Chief Whip. I rarely personally try and convince people to change their vote.
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by RayApparently)
I tagged those people because it's not only members of my party that might want to change their vote. I can't believe a Kipper and old colleague like RotatingPhasor would be ok with this passing.

You're probably misremembering what I said anyway but regardless it was jokingly because it's not something I'd ever say. No successful party leader would say something like that. And Labour has a Chief Whip. I rarely personally try and convince people to change their vote.
I was joking to, you are over reacting.

Again Wilhuff Tarkin is our law person , I know **** all about law so have nothing to say.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (30)
42.25%
Take autumn exams (27)
38.03%
Look for a job (1)
1.41%
Consider an apprenticeship (2)
2.82%
Take a year out (8)
11.27%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
4.23%

Watched Threads

View All