Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law

Page name

In my view, it should be "non-fatal non-sexual" rather than just "non-fatal" for clarity. Certain sexual offences were characterised as offences against the person by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and this is still the case with the Visiting Forces Act 1952. James500 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I though that would be pushing the name a bit far. I do not think that the average reader would expect expect sexual offences to be covered here, and it's noted prominently in the lead. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have struck my remarks. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideally we'd have Sexual offences in English law, but it hasn't been written yet. Indeed the system needs impvroing, but that can't really happen unless matched by content creation, and there's only so much I/we can do at once. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Sexual offences in the United Kingdom. I had it in mind to split that into its three components sooner or later. James500 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

The article says that "R v Burstow extended "bodily harm" to include psychological trauma if it formed a recognised serious mental condition" (my emphasis). In R v Chan Fook, in 1993, the Court of Appeal said that bodily harm included "psychiatric injury". In R v Burstow, the Court of Appeal said they were bound by that previous decision, and Lord Steyn agreed that they were. In what sense has the meaning of the term been "extended" by R v Burstow? James500 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Chan Fook was charged with a S47 offence, whereas Burstow was charged with S20. If that is correct, "extended" seems reasonable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this. --Noleander (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Any pictures available? Look in other, related articles and see if any pic/image is suitable for this article.

• Perhaps add a footer navbox? one of:
  • {{English criminal law navbox}}
  • {{UK law}}
  • {{Europe topic}}

• Would it be appropriate to add a section (or mere paragraph) comparing English to US law on these crimes?

• "Assault is a summary offence...". Need to define "Summary offense".

• It should be made clear in the Lead why this group of crimes is, well, a group. The title is "Non-fatal offences against the person". Is there a reason that group of crimes exist? What do the sources say (as to why they are grouped)? Do the crimes all have something in common? Another way of asking this question: Can you demonstrate that this collection of crimes is not invented by a WP editor, but rather a collection made by the sources themselves.

1. I'm afraid I'm really struggling for a suitable picture. No similar article uses them (although the articles aren't great).
2. Added a navbox
3. The problem comes when you ask "why the US?". An international comparison would be interesting, and lengthy, and therefore best left to the general pages (e.g. assault, battery (crime)).
4. I've tweaked the lead, but there isn't really a clear basis for it (there's a differentiating factor to sexual offences mentioned) and the OAPA act. Both Smith & Hogan (I now have the 2005 edition) and Simester and Sullivan use this distinction, I'm almost certain it's maintained in the other big textbooks as well. Excluding fatal offences is the anomaly, if you like, but it's a pragmatic one: the death of a person is an important factor socially/factually/legally. I've done a bit on Homicide in English law, will link to that as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• What about a sidebar? I see that Offence against the person has a "Criminal Law" side bar. I know the footer navbox already meets much of that need, but (a) without pictures, the article looks like a wall of text, so a sidebar may help; and (b) some novice readers may not think to scroll all the way to the bottom: the sidebar may help them realize there are other, related articles available in the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Added a graph I made instead, don't think the sidebar would help because it's about general crimes and not those in English law. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• When I review the "What Links Here" for this article, I don't see many articles. At a minimum, I would expect to see all the "main" articles on the various crimes (battery, assault, etc) linking here. For GA, it is not required that you add text to those articles, but at a minimum you should put a link to this article in their "see also" section. I'm guessing maybe 10 articles or so should link to this one. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Added three more, though it's not a GA criterion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The following links are ambiguous:
  • Recklessness
  • Lord Hope
  • Bob Sullivan

Changed. I had intended the last to be intentional, but I guess an over-specific redlink might be less confusing to the reader. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: