‘Actual bodily harm’ under the 1861 Act, may include injury to any part of the body, including internal organs, the nervous system and the brain. It is capable of including psychiatric injury, but not mere emotion such as fear, distress or panic. ‘Similarly an injury can be caused to someone by injuring their health; an assault may have the consequence of infecting the victim with a disease or causing the victim to become ill. The injury may be internal and may not be accompanied by any external injury.’ . . and: ‘In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon as the basis for an allegation of bodily harm, and the matter has not been admitted by the defence, expert evidence should be called by the prosecution. It should not be left to be inferred by the jury from the general facts of the case. In the absence of appropriate expert evidence, a question whether or not the assault occasioning psychiatric injury should not be left to the jury . . There is no reason for refusing to have regard to psychiatric injury as the consequence of an assault if there is properly qualified evidence that it has occurred.’ and
‘In the case of Attia, the Court of Appeal discussed where the borderline should be drawn between, on the one hand, the emotions of distress and grief and on the other hand some actual psychiatric illness such as anxiety, neurosis or a reactive depression. The authorities recognised that there is a line to be drawn and whether any given case falls on one side or the other is a matter for expert evidence. The civil cases are also concerned with the broader question of the boundaries of the law of negligence and the duty of care, which do not concern us.
Accordingly, the phrase ‘actual bodily harm’ is capable of including psychiatric injury. But it does not include mere emotion such as fear, distress or panic, nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition. The phrase ‘state of mind’ is not a scientific one and should be avoided in considering whether or not the psychiatric injury has been caused; its use is likely to create in the minds of the jury the impression that something which is no more than a strong emotion, such as extreme fear or panic, can amount to actual bodily harm. It cannot. Similarly, juries should not be directed that an assault which causes a hysterical and nervous condition is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Where there is evidence that the assault has caused some psychiatric injury, the jury should be directed that injury is capable of amounting to actual bodily harm; otherwise there should be no reference to the mental state of the victim following the assault unless it be relevant to some other aspect of the case, as it was in Roberts’.
Hobhouse J
Times 19-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 15-Nov-1993, [1994] 99 Cr App R 147
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 47
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Approved – Regina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
Cited – Regina v Ireland CACD 14-May-1996
Silent telephone calls which resulted in psychiatric damage to the victim could constitute an ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ for the purposes of section 47 of the 1861 Act. Swinton Thomas LJ said: ‘The early cases pre-date the invention of . .
Cited – Regina v Burstow Admn 29-Jul-1996
Grievous bodily harm can be inflicted by a stalker without direct physical contact and can include psychological damage. The statute could be interpreted to reflect current standards. . .
Cited – Regina v Morris CACD 22-Oct-1997
An allegation of assault occasioning bodily harm, where the harm alleged was of a purely psychological nature, must be supported by psychiatric evidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.86328 br>