Actual Bodily Harm Landmark Cases
๐ฅ Actual Bodily Harm (ABH): Detailed Explanation with Case Law
๐ What is ABH?
Under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a person commits ABH when:
They intentionally or recklessly assault or cause another person to fear unlawful force, and
That assault actually causes bodily harm that is more than โtrivial or transientโ.
โ Elements of the Offence:
Assault or battery must occur
Bodily harm must be more than minor (but not as serious as GBH)
The harm must be caused by the act
Intent to harm is not required โ recklessness is enough
โ๏ธ Landmark ABH Case Law
1. R v. Miller (1954)
๐น Facts:
The defendant had a non-consensual sexual encounter with his wife and injured her. He was charged under ABH.
๐น Held:
The court ruled that "actual bodily harm" includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, and it must be more than transient or trifling.
โ Principle:
Set the threshold for ABH โ not just bruises, but anything affecting comfort or health.
2. R v. Chan-Fook (1994)
๐น Facts:
A man was locked in a room and verbally abused; he suffered psychological harm (anxiety and panic).
๐น Held:
The court held that psychiatric injury can amount to ABH, if clinically recognised (e.g. not just fear or panic).
โ Principle:
Recognised mental health conditions = ABH if caused by the assault.
3. DPP v. Smith (Michael) (2006)
๐น Facts:
The defendant cut off his girlfriendโs ponytail without her consent.
๐น Held:
The court ruled this was ABH, because cutting off hair โ even without physical pain โ affects bodily integrity.
โ Principle:
Physical interference with the body โ even without pain โ can be ABH.
4. R v. Savage; DPP v. Parmenter (1992)
๐น Facts:
In Savage, the defendant threw a beer glass intending to throw the contents but accidentally cut someone.
In Parmenter, the defendant injured his baby while playing roughly.
๐น Held:
The intention to assault is enough, even if the ABH wasn't intended. Recklessness about harm is sufficient.
โ Principle:
No need to intend the ABH โ just the assault/battery that caused it.
5. R v. Roberts (1971)
๐น Facts:
The defendant made unwanted sexual advances in a moving car. The victim jumped out and was injured.
๐น Held:
He was guilty of ABH because her injuries were a foreseeable consequence of his assault.
โ Principle:
Victimโs reaction (if reasonable) does not break the chain of causation.
6. T v. DPP (2003)
๐น Facts:
During a group attack, the victim was knocked unconscious for a brief time.
๐น Held:
The court said temporary unconsciousness is actual bodily harm.
โ Principle:
Even short-term loss of consciousness counts as ABH.
7. R v. Ireland; R v. Burstow (1997)
๐น Facts:
Defendants made repeated silent phone calls causing psychological damage.
๐น Held:
House of Lords held that silent phone calls can be assault, and psychological injuries can be ABH or even GBH, depending on severity.
โ Principle:
Expands ABH to mental trauma caused by harassment or fear.
โ Summary Table of ABH Principles
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| R v. Miller (1954) | ABH = more than transient or trifling injury |
| R v. Chan-Fook (1994) | Recognised psychiatric injury can be ABH |
| DPP v. Smith (2006) | Cutting hair without consent = ABH |
| R v. Savage; Parmenter (1992) | Intent to injure not needed โ recklessness is enough |
| R v. Roberts (1971) | Victimโs escape reaction can lead to ABH charge |
| T v. DPP (2003) | Unconsciousness = ABH |
| R v. Ireland (1997) | Silent calls + mental harm = ABH or GBH |
๐ง Quick Recap:
ABH doesn't require intent to cause serious harm.
Psychological injury counts โ but only if clinically recognised.
Bodily integrity (like hair or unconsciousness) can be enough.
The law focuses more on effect on the victim, not just what the defendant intended.
RELATED Blog
0 comments