ABH case law

R v Miller (1954)

The defendant’s actions caused the victim physical discomfort, and the court considered whether this amounted to ABH. It was held that ABH includes any injury that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort, provided it is more than trivial or transient. The case emphasized that the harm does not need to be serious but must have a noticeable impact. This definition clarified the threshold for harm under ABH. It remains a foundational case for interpreting the scope of ABH.

R v Chan-Fook (1994)

The defendant locked the victim in a room, causing him to suffer significant psychological distress. The court ruled that ABH includes psychiatric injuries but only if they are medically recognized conditions. Emotions such as fear, distress, or panic do not qualify unless they result in such a condition. This case expanded the definition of ABH to include non-physical harm while setting limits on what qualifies. It established a clear distinction between emotional distress and recognized psychiatric harm.

DPP v Smith (2006)

The defendant cut off his girlfriend’s ponytail during an argument, causing her emotional distress. The court ruled that cutting off hair without consent could constitute ABH, as it amounts to harm to the victim’s physical integrity. The decision confirmed that physical pain is not a necessary element of ABH. This case reinforced the idea that harm to personal autonomy can qualify as actual bodily harm. It highlighted that even minor physical interferences can fall within the scope of ABH.

R v Savage (1991)

The defendant threw beer over the victim, and the glass slipped, cutting the victim’s wrist. The court ruled that the defendant only needed the mens rea for the initial battery (throwing the beer), not for the resulting injury. It confirmed that intention or recklessness regarding the assault or battery is sufficient for ABH. The case emphasized that defendants do not need to foresee or intend the full extent of the harm caused. It remains a leading authority on the mens rea for Section 47 offences.

R v Martin (1881)

The defendant placed an iron bar across the exit of a theatre and shouted "Fire!" causing a panic that led to several injuries. Martin argued that he did not personally apply force to the victims. The court held that indirect force causing injury could constitute unlawful bodily harm. His actions were deemed intentional and reckless, as he knew his conduct would likely cause harm. This case is significant for illustrating that indirect acts can satisfy the actus reus of assault or battery.

R v Constanza (1997)

The defendant sent 800 threatening letters and made phone calls to the victim, causing her to suffer from clinical depression. The court ruled that the letters and calls amounted to assault as they caused the victim to apprehend immediate violence. It was held that the apprehension of harm does not need to occur instantly but in the immediate future. This case broadened the scope of assault to include written communication and psychological harm. It clarified that the "immediacy" requirement is flexible depending on the circumstances.

R v Burstow (1997)

The defendant harassed a woman for months through stalking, silent phone calls, and abusive letters, resulting in her developing severe depression. The court held that psychiatric harm could constitute grievous bodily harm (GBH) under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It was ruled that an assault does not always require physical contact if it leads to significant harm. This case established that serious psychological injuries can meet the threshold for GBH. It emphasized the legal recognition of mental health injuries in criminal offences.

R v Wilson (1996)

The defendant branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks at her request, causing minor injuries. The court held that consensual body modification for personal or aesthetic reasons was not an unlawful act. It distinguished this case from others involving harm, such as R v Brown (1993), by focusing on the absence of sadomasochistic intent. The ruling recognized bodily autonomy in consensual, non-violent contexts. This case is significant for exploring the limits of consent in physical harm.

R v Eisenhower (1983)

The defendant fired an air rifle, hitting the victim in the eye and causing internal bleeding but no break in the skin. The court ruled that for a wound to qualify as grievous bodily harm (GBH), there must be a break in the continuity of the skin. As the injury did not meet this criterion, the offence did not amount to wounding under Section 20. This case clarified the legal definition of "wound" in criminal law. It remains a key case in distinguishing wounds from other injuries.

R v Dica (2004)

The defendant, who was HIV positive, knowingly transmitted the virus to two women during consensual sexual intercourse. The court ruled that this amounted to grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It held that consent to sexual intercourse does not extend to consenting to the risk of serious disease unless explicitly agreed upon. This case established the principle that intentional or reckless transmission of diseases can constitute GBH. It significantly shaped the law on consent and disease transmission.

R v Rowe (2018)

The defendant deliberately infected multiple men with HIV by sabotaging condoms and failing to disclose his condition. He was convicted under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court emphasized that his deliberate actions showed clear intent to cause harm. This case reaffirmed that the intentional transmission of life-changing illnesses is a serious criminal offence. It highlighted the severe consequences of maliciously endangering others’ health.

R v Bollom (2004)

The defendant caused bruising and abrasions to a 17-month-old child. The court held that the severity of injuries should be assessed in light of the victim’s age and vulnerability. It was ruled that injuries that may be considered minor for an adult could amount to grievous bodily harm for a child. This case emphasized the importance of considering the victim's characteristics when evaluating harm. It set a precedent for tailoring the assessment of harm to the victim's circumstances

R v Brown and Stratton (1998)

Two defendants severely beat a transgender woman during a drunken attack, causing multiple injuries including a broken nose and missing teeth. The court held that the combined injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm. It was emphasized that cumulative injuries, even if individually minor, can collectively meet the threshold for GBH. The defendants were convicted under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This case clarified that harm should be considered holistically when assessing its severity.

R v Brown (1992)

A group of men engaged in consensual sadomasochistic acts that caused injuries such as bruises and burns. The House of Lords ruled that consent was not a defence for acts causing actual or grievous bodily harm in non-medical or non-sporting contexts. The court emphasized the need to balance personal autonomy with public policy concerns about protecting individuals from harm. This case set limits on the extent to which consent can be a defence in cases involving serious injury. It remains a controversial decision in the context of bodily autonomy and criminal liability.

R v Taylor (2009)

The defendant stabbed the victim with a knife, causing superficial injuries that did not amount to serious harm. The court held that for a conviction under Section 18 (wounding with intent), there must be clear evidence of intent to cause grievous bodily harm. As the injuries were minor and the intent was ambiguous, the conviction was reduced to Section 20 GBH. This case highlighted the importance of proving intent for more serious offences. It serves as a key precedent for distinguishing between Sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.