Post by mattgibson on Nov 12, 2014 17:28:52 GMT
The Law Commission has today finally made an announcement on OAPA reform. It has produced a scoping/consultation paper on how to update offences against the person available here: lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp217_offences_against_the_person.pdf. A briefer summary is available here: lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp217_offences_against_the_person_summary.pdf.
In brief, it appears they are broadly in favour of the 1998 Home Office proposals (replace ABH/GBH) with offences of intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally or recklessly causing injury. They also seem in favour of retaining separate offences of assault and battery (albeit perhaps renamed) and are particularly interested in how best to capture disease transmission (particularly after the recent case of Golding which extended the category of transmissible diseases - for the purposes of the OAPA - from HIV to herpes). From a labelling angle, I know that John Gardner has advocated maintaining the current terms 'ABH' and 'GBH because of their moral resonance with the public; alternatively, Jeremy Horder has said that offences against the person should also be more descriptive in their labelling so that they accurately describe what D has done (eg. injure, maim, disfigure etc.). I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the overall ideas for reform by the LC here...
In brief, it appears they are broadly in favour of the 1998 Home Office proposals (replace ABH/GBH) with offences of intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally or recklessly causing injury. They also seem in favour of retaining separate offences of assault and battery (albeit perhaps renamed) and are particularly interested in how best to capture disease transmission (particularly after the recent case of Golding which extended the category of transmissible diseases - for the purposes of the OAPA - from HIV to herpes). From a labelling angle, I know that John Gardner has advocated maintaining the current terms 'ABH' and 'GBH because of their moral resonance with the public; alternatively, Jeremy Horder has said that offences against the person should also be more descriptive in their labelling so that they accurately describe what D has done (eg. injure, maim, disfigure etc.). I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the overall ideas for reform by the LC here...