essential cases actus reus

Question 1

R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147, House of Lords

Answer 1

Robert Ireland had made a large number of silent phone calls to three women. As a result, all three had suffered psychological illnesses. Ireland was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

After his relationship with the victim had ended, Anthony Burstow had conducted a campaign of harassment for eight months, including silent telephone calls, distributing offensive cards, sending menacing messages, photographing her and her family, and following her. As a result, the victim suffered a severe depressive illness. Burstow was charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s. 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Question 2

outcome

Answer 2

A common issue to both appeals was whether or not ‘bodily harm’ could include psychiatric illness. The House of Lords confirmed (following Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689) that where there was a recognizable psychiatric injury, that could amount to actual bodily harm, and if it were serious, it could amount to grievous bodily harm. However, this was only where the condition was a recognizable psychiatric condition; distress or upset, without more, could not be a bodily harm.

Question 3

other issue raised in burstow

Answer 3

inflict v caused wording

Question 4

solution to issue

Answer 4

So far as Burstow was concerned, the other major issue was the definition of the word ‘inflict’ in s. 20. Their Lordships held that it could be defined as ‘caused’ and did not require proof of a direct application of force. Stalking and harassment that caused a serious psychological illness could therefore fall under s. 20 even if no bodily force was involved.

Question 5

another issue in ireland

Answer 5

In Ireland, a major issue discussed by their Lordships was whether or not an assault could be committed by means of a silent phone call. They held that it could. The defendant had generated a fear of imminent violence. The precise method used did not matter: it could be by words, gestures, or a silent phone call.

Question 6

guidance given on the nature of fear required

Answer 6

Their Lordships also gave some guidance on the nature of the fear required for an assault: it needed to be a fear of imminent violence. Fear of violence ‘within a minute or two’ was sufficient.

Question 7

another case example for actus reus

Answer 7

r v kennedy

Question 8

another case example for actus reus

Answer 8

r v wallace

Question 9

another case example for actus reus

Answer 9

r v miller