Journal

Acid attacks are a pandemic the law is failing to treat

By on
28

Academics and MPs flock to recommend new laws, but will they make a difference?

It has been referred to as “torture in a bottle”. Every time we switch on the news there is another acid attack, a freedom of information request from the Met Police showing that in 2016 alone there were 431 attacks in London. This has sharply risen over the past four years and something, therefore, needs to be done to combat this.

Yesterday, Arthur Collins (pictured) was sentenced to 20 years in prison for spraying acid over multiple people in a nightclub in Dalston, East London. Collins is the ex-boyfriend of reality TV star Ferne McCann, who has since given birth to his child. Fourteen people were scarred for life in the attack, three left temporarily blinded.

Just last month, an attack was carried out in Walthamstow on a delivery driver. Muhammed Nawshad Kamal was approached by two people, police said, who attempted to steal his moped. Their weapon of choice was acid, throwing the substance in his face. He was left fighting for his life and it is likely to go blind from the incident.

Approximately 30 minutes after this horrific attack, in Tottenham another delivery driver was attacked in a similar fashion, however the acid was sprayed in his face.

What does the law currently say about these horrendous attacks?

Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence to wound or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent. Section 20 of the same act covers GBH without such a strong intent. Those carrying out attacks such as that on Kamal, which leave the victim with serious injuries, can be charged with this crime. If the attack leaves minor injuries the offender can be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under section 47 of the same act. ABH carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and GBH a life sentence.

Section 29 of the above act specifically deals with throwing corrosive fluid on a person, however this is rarely used. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 it is also an offence to “carry an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse”, which can carry a maximum sentence of four years. However, those who carry a corrosive substance are unlikely to be arrested or charged under this act as intent to use it as a weapon must be shown.

These sentences, however, seem to do nothing to deter criminals from carrying out these attacks. Although there has been (and continues to be) a current surge in acid attacks, they actually date back to Victorian times.

In 1834, it was reported that a male had been hung for throwing vitriol “wilfully and maliciously” on the face of a fellow servant while he slept. There is no current police intelligence as to why there has been such a dramatic increase, but if we explore the reasons it may be easier to stop the rise in these crimes.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

One reason may be how easy it is to access products which contain acid. Although there are certain chemicals which are regulated and require a valid licence to purchase, there are other products which are not. Household bleach, for example, is a corrosive substance which when exposed to the skin can cause chemical burns and loss of pigmentation in the skin. Household cleaning chemicals such as this have no age restriction on purchasing and are readily available at almost every convenience store and supermarket. Stronger substances such as sulphuric acid cost on average less than £10 and can be easily purchased online with no checks, or from a hardware store if you are over 18. Sulphuric acid can burn through both the outer skin and the flesh under your skin.

Another reason for the increase may be because carrying and using acid is easier and likely to attract a lesser sentence than carrying and using a knife. Simon Harding, a criminologist, explains that “the charges are more serious if you are caught with a knife and the tariff for prison sentences are much higher”. He added:

“Acid is likely to attract a ‘GBH with intent’ charge while using a knife is more likely to lead to the attacker being charged with attempted murder.”

Acid attacks are also quicker to commit and a harder offence to prove when compared to knife crime as they rarely leave DNA evidence. Acid is also easier to conceal in a plastic bottle and during a search officers may mistake the substance for water, unlike a knife which is harder to conceal in a search. This may be why acid is becoming, to some, “a weapon of first choice”.

Harding believes that to tackle the problem of acid attacks the government needs to consider three elements: that acid is too readily available; that sentencing should be in line with knife crimes; and education of the effects of acid attacks needs to be provided.

Many people have called for stricter laws and restrictions on the purchase of corrosive chemicals. This may resolve the issue of acid being readily available. Jaf Shah from Acid Survivors Trust International and Katie Piper, an acid victim, are two of the people campaigning for tougher restrictions. It is thought that by making corrosive chemicals only available under licence and by a card that is traceable acid will be less easy to purchase. Ex-Lib Dem leader Tim Farron also believes that to prevent the crime “we need to look at how best to restrict the availability of acid”.

Will the government take heed? The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced a crackdown on these attacks with plans to outlaw carrying acid in public without a good reason and sales to under 18s to be banned. This regulation however may be hard to uphold on household cleaning products and is likely to cause inconvenience to those purchasing it for legitimate reasons. Home Office minister Sarah Newton agrees that regulation may be difficult as “these chemicals are under everyone’s kitchen sinks”.

Labour MP Stephen Timms believes that the way to prevent these attacks is to alter the legislation to be in line with that of knife crimes, by making possessing sulphuric acid on the street an offence. The minister for crime, Sarah Newton, has confirmed that although judges already have the power to give a life sentence to the more serious cases of GBH they intend to educate the CPS and review sentencing “to make sure that people understand the powers they’ve got, understand the measures that can be in place and making sure that those penalties truly reflect the severity of the injuries.”

However, is it realistic that these changes will prevent another attack?

The changes in law will take a long time to debate and implement and it may be hard to get sentencing consistent with that of knife crimes, but making these changes may reduce the frequency of them. Also, criminals are always likely to find a new weapon of choice once the laws become tough on acid and so it may be better to focus on the victims and supporting the NHS through their treatment.

Zoe Bowler graduated from the University of Brighton in 2017 with a first-class degree in law and criminology. She is the recipient of three academic prizes and has an avid interest in family law.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Please bear in mind that the authors of many Legal Cheek Journal pieces are at the beginning of their career. We'd be grateful if you could keep your comments constructive.

28 Comments

Anonymous

Good article. Best of luck with your career.

Anonymous

I agree.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

I’d be interested in the author’s suggestions on how to prevent acid attacks.

I’m not being funny (I know that written comments can sometimes obscure meaning), I’m genuinely interested. As a resident of Walthamstow I was shocked to hear about our poor delivery driver, and want to prevent this happening in the future. My initial response was to go “just ban highly acidic acids”, but that’s no good as strong acids are needed for cleaning drains, etc. And if my science lessons from school are right, a strong alkali would give the same effect (I’m no scientist, though, so I might be wrong).

Perhaps stronger sentencing would help, I don’t know. I agree that we should support the NHS more in helping the victims, but I’d really rather prevent this sort of thing happeneing, but I don’t know how. This is one area where I’m totally stumped.

Anonymous

Exemplary sentences. It worked for armed robbery.

Publicise it well, apply the sentences and the scrotes will go back to knives and hammers soon enough.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

I don’t want knives and hammers either, though.

Anonymous

No, nobody does. But there will always be violent criminals. What policing and sentencing policy can do is shift modes and techniques of crime.

Knives and hammers are preferable to acid.

Trumpenkrieg

“As a resident of Walthamstow I was shocked to hear about our poor delivery driver…”

Begone, gentrifier.

Proleperson

Jesus, this guy.

Whatever happened to Corbyn. Sympathiser?

Anonymous

I wonder why there has been a surge in acid attacks in recent years.

Carpe Jugulum

There are currently sufficient legal provisions in place with regard to charging and sentencing of offenders. The 20 year sentence referenced shows that this is being treated on a par with very serious knife crime. It is seldom the case that reactionary knee-jerk legislation leads to good law.

Politician’s logic – “Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.” Sir Humphrey

Corbyn. Symphathiser

I agree, that’s why I reconsidered my initial “let’s just ban acid” stance – because when I thought about it for more than five seconds it doesn’t make sense.

I also agree that action for action’s sake is wrong – but nevertheless, something surely must be done. But what? I have no clue on this one.

Carpe Jugulum

I think the ultimate fallacy is the idea something can be done. The fundamental idea that new legislation is going to deter this kind of offending is flawed. Many of these cases involve gangs and gang members tend not to be too concerned with the legal consequences of their actions. The biggest threats in their life are rival gangs and members of their own gang.

The existing law is sufficient to punish offenders who commit these crimes. The main problem is that journalists and government ministers don’t understand the law.

Your point that just banning acid wont work is spot on. We would end up banning everything.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

Well, we surely can’t just throw our hands up and go “meh” as people are killed of disfigured for life. That was does US-style complacency lie.

Of course something can be done. I don’t presume that it is possible to stop all acid attacks any more than laws and CCTV and social stigma and basic human feeling will stop all murders, but the sharp rise we’ve seen must be the result of something, and if we can attack the cause, we can stop (or at least massively reduce) the effects.

I think you’ve more or less got it that this is due to gang ‘warfare’. As I understand, the poor man in Walthamstow you was attacked had already abandoned his moped, but the attack on him was a sort of rite of passage. What we need to do is give young people more support and opportunities. We need to make joining a gang unattractive, and we can do this by investing in our most neglected communities. My username alone will tell you how I think that can be done so I won’t belabour the point, but the actual impoverishment of our nation over the last decade has, I feel, led to our moral impoverishment. This must be reversed.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

To borrow a phrase from someone I don’t especially admire, I suppose you could say I want to be “tough on the causes of crime”.

Carpe Jugulum

On the whole you are right. The real issue is that people who join gangs feel a greater degree of safety than they would otherwise do and that is sad. We have cut provisions to education, social work, community policing, youth offending teams and probation along with a myriad of other services. When he system totally abandons you it’s natural that you may look elsewhere. Huge investment is needed in areas where gangs thrive.

I don’t advocate ignoring the problem I just think that the solution isn’t tinkering with a criminal justice system that has the tools to deal with the issue in terms of a legal framework to prosecute offenders.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

Yes, I agree with you. The solutions we need are political solutions, making laws to ban this or increasing sentencing for that won’t work.

I didn’t mean to imply that you advocated ignoring the problem, though in retrospect I can see how my post could come off that way, so I apologise.

I’m off home now, so this will probably be my last post of the year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Goddard LCJ (Dec’d)

Hang’em!

Anonymous

Restrictions on sales may help to some extent. There has to be a line between practicality and sensibility. Strong acids are regularly needed for various tasks. Some sort of licence may be one answer, but the questoin then arises as to how strict the requirements are.

As above, exemplary sentences are probably the way forward. Publicise them, and make a fuss over them. Combine that with strong policing and protection of victims.

It’s not an easy issue.

Corbyn. Symphathiser

I don’t think licences will necessarily help – should you require a licence to clear your own drains? Should we create a special class of “aciders” who are allowed to carry the stuff, and can charge what they want for the use of it? I don’t think that would work.

I agree this isn’t an easy issue.

Anonymous

20 years was harsh

Anonymous

Those caught should have acid slowly dripped on their genitals until nothing remains.

Anonymous

It should also be filmed and put on a public shame register.

Scouser of Counsel

I don’t think it was harsh, and nor do the poor sods who were scarred for life.

Deterrence is a legitimate sentencing purpose, is it not?

Anonymous

Collins sprayed acid on 20+ victims and received about a year for scarring each one.

About a year inside for each victim doesn’t seem excessive.

Anonymous

I agree. I think he deserves to be physically maimed himself. I am sure he will in prison. I hope they chop pieces off of him.

Trumpenkrieg

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

Lord Goddard (Dec'd)

Bring me my trousers.

Lord Goddard (Dec’d)

Where’s me spares?

Join the conversation

Related Stories