DaveP wrote:Surely this is aggravated by the use of an offensive weapon?
Of course it is, particularly when the head is the target.
But first you get all the evidence, then somebody has to decide what charge is appropriate and can be proved, given that evidence. The charging decision is now one for the CPS and fair enough, but there is a lot of horse trading, which cannot be called plea bargaining for "legal reasons", which tends to reduce the charge. Following conviction, sentencing is a matter for the judge or bench of magistrates. The court should take everything into account including aggravating factors like the weapon used, while the defence mitigates. The sentence can only reflect the charge proved or admitted, not what the judge might think it should have been.
In 1861, the legislators were obviously living in different times. (They were also busy because as well as the Offences Against the Person Act they also passed the Malicious Damage Act and the Larceny Act, both now superseded.) Section 18 covered wounding
with intent. Now, that seems pretty clear.
Section 20 is grievous bodily harm the notorious GBH. This was originally where a criminal action caused serious injury but intention could not be proved. Section 18 carries life and s 20 five years. BUT, s 18 is triable only on indictment - everybody in fancy dress with a jury, while s 20 is triable by magistrates. So, for as long as anybody can remember and even before that, section 18 hasn't been used much.
Section 47 is 'Actual bodily harm' and doesn't sound so bad but it is 5 years max, same as s20.
(Common assault - where no injury need be proved used to have two forms, one under s 47 and the other under s 42 where only the injured person could take action was changed a few years ago when domestic violence was recognised as a serious problem.)
Anyway, when everything has been permed and cross permed, the outcome is something of a lottery.
Not even a reaction to the cordless angle grinder.
Are you a terrier?