Law Essay Help please....Watch
We have to evaluate and criticise the non-fatal offences i.e the legislation etc and use the law commission etc but it's so confusing. Any help would be much appreciated thank you!
Summary of the Law Com report: https://www.criminallawandjustice.co...Against-Person
Journal article about the Law Com report: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/61946/4/Not%...20Person-1.pdf
I highly doubt that your law teacher gave you nothing. More likely they gave you some clues but you weren't paying attention.
If you need any help, hit me up in PMs! My law teacher is quite good at these sorts of things and I did NFOATP last night. I'm OCR new spec so if you're old spec I probably won't be much help I'm afraid lol.
Ok so s.18 and 20 are extremely similar and there isn't much difference between the two. s.20 is inflicting grievous bodily harm without the exact mens rea to do so or doing so recklessly. s.18 is extremely similar, except that it requires proof of intent if it is against a regular member of the public, but it has the same MR as s.20 if it is against a police officer and intervening in a lawful arrest of another person. For example, if I hit someone on the head with a golf club and it fractured their jaw, I could be liable for GBH contrary to s.20 OAPA as I don't have direct intent to fracture their jaw, but if I did the same to a police officer I could be liable for GBH contrary to s.18 OAPA. Further, if I was driving along and saw someone lying on the road and I drove over their foot and broke their ankle as they were trying to get away, I could be liable for s.18 OAPA as it is obvious I have direct intent as I have seen the person there and proceeded to run them over and break their foot. Both of these offences come under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (which has been amended several times, as it first included punishments such as the death penalty - which was abolished in a private member's bill from Sydney Silverman in the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965) and they are both indictable offences, meaning that they must have a full criminal trial in front of a jury of 12 people. s.47, however, is assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) contrary to s.47 OAPA. For this, the first offence can be either assault or battery which must result in ABH (hence the name). ABH is usually defined as an injury not so trivial that it would be considered insignificant and an injury that interferes with one's health or comfort. This offence is triable either way, meaning that it can be tried in both a magistrate's court or a crown court in front of a jury of 12. For example, if I were to punch someone on the arm and they got a bruise from it, I could be liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm as well as battery (applying unlawful force to another person) as my battery has escalated into ABH as the bruise is less trivial that it could be considered insignificant, and it would almost certainly impair the V's health or comfort. The MR for s.47 is likely the simplest part yet the most complicated to grasp: this is the same as the MR for the ulterior offence. In my example, it means that I would not require a separate MR to the battery for bruising the V, but merely just the MR to punch the victim in the arm. I hope that all makes sense! If you need any more help don't be afraid to ask! I could also send you some revision materials I make if you'd like.
I think we'll be doing those next year, we've only really done legislative process and some criminal law so far. We've just started working on the juries quite recently though as well.