Errrm

The general structure of non-fatal offences (nfo) has been criticised for being complicated and illogical. The oapa 1861 is victorian legislation that was never intended to be a logical and consistent set of rules as it is a piece of legislation that simply brought all the then applicable laws into one act, called a consolidation act. This means the sections are randomly ss47, 20 and 18 because the act also includes other sections setting out the law on matters as diverse as poisoning and kidnapping. The oapa does not include common assault which is not even defined in an act, though has been clarified as an offence in the cja 1998 leading to further confusion.

The language used in nfo’s is antiquated and out of date. Lord steyn commented in ireland; burstow (1997) regarding the meaning of grevious bodily harm that ‘the victorian legislator ... Would not have in mind psychiatric illness’ but illnesses affecting the mind are now an established area of medical health and legislation needs to reflect this. Judges have found ways to establish liability for psychiatric harm in the stalking cases (e.g. Constanza) but the liberal interpretations they imposed upon the wording of gbh in the act in order to achieve this have been the subject of much criticism.

This area of law has been reformed as stalkers can now be prosecuted under the protection from harassment act 1997 as opposed to the oapa 1861, clearly a desirable development in this area of increasingly prevalent criminal behaviour.

The phrase assault has also been criticised as it is used to cover a wide range of injuries from the technical meaning of words alone, in ireland, to the confusion of use in s47 abh, where its use was finally interpreted to mean either a battery or assault in cases like savage. S47 of the oapa 1861 only uses the word ‘assault’ when this is also meant to cover battery. The common law offence of common assault adds to this antiquated and complex system of nfo’s by requiring...