NFO evaluation
- Created by: alliehxtch18
- Created on: 24-05-18 11:32
View mindmap
- NFO Evaluation 1.
- 1. Professor JC Smith talked about how the OAPA is inconsistent in two ways; content and structure
- said that the non fatal offences were a "rag bag of offences brought together from a wide variety of sources with no attempt to introduce consistency as to substance or form"
- the FIRST issue is how the terminology is confusing and inaccurate.
- for example 'wounding' which is defined in Eisenhower as 2 layers of broken skin
- it is either a s20 or s18 alongside GBH, by doing this, it implies that it is serious as GBH is defined as 'really serious harm' in DPP v Smith
- But, contrary to its name even a pin ***** can be a wound if it breaks 2 layers of skin.
- this means that wounding is out of place as it misleads people.
- the LC could remedy this problem by removing the term 'wounding' so that if D has wounded V, D's charge would be based on V's injuries
- a serious wound would be charged under recklessly causing serious injury or causing serious injury with intent
- a less serious 'wound' would be charged under causing injury or aggravated assault.
- this would be far more sensible as it avoids any confusion over the wording
Comments
No comments have yet been made