Allied to the introduction of s. 58 CA 2004, the UK government made various press releases informing the public in England and Wales that Act's effects in lay terms, such as the following from The Daily Telegraph:[6] Parents who smack their children hard enough to leave a mark will face up to five years' imprisonment from today.
A 'reasonable chastisement' defence will still be available to parents but they could be charged with common assault if a smack causes bruises, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts.
NSPCC boss Mary Marsh said: "Hitting a child remains legal – as long as parents do not cause children injury amounting to anything more than transient reddening of the skin. ...
Mrs Marsh added: "Parents may find themselves, often in the heat of the moment, trying to decide how hard and where on the body they can hit their children to avoid prosecution for leaving a mark.
A Department for Education and Skills spokeswoman said: "The Government has sent a clear message to parents that they will not be criminalised for bringing up their children in a supportive disciplinary environment and are able to consider smacking as part of that.
"Also contemporary, the CPS made a less public assertion that with child victims of assault, their age could be considered an aggravating factor in deciding upon the charge, presumably to prevent further cases similar to A v UK.
Section 58 and the amended Charging Standard mean that for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in loco parentis which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, and where the injury is more that [sic] transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available.This change to the charging standard reached police officers as the following bulletin[8] (obtained via a FOIA request from Humberside Police and operational 2015) transmuting the original CPS assertion in possibility of 'could', through the advisory of 'should' and reaching those operationally responsible for enforcing the law bearing the definitive 'would': It states that, in respect of adults, an assault which causes injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, or a 'black eye' would normally be considered common assault.
ABH should generally be charged where the injuries and overall circumstances indicate that the offence merits clearly more than six months' imprisonment and where the prosecution intend to represent that the case is not suitable for summary trial.
There may be exceptional cases where the injuries suffered by a victim are not serious and would usually amount to Common Assault but due to the presence of significant aggravating features (alone or in combination), they could more appropriately be charged as ABH contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.