The offence of actual bodily harm is set out in S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Which provides that it

is an offence to commit an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Whilst the statute only refers to assault, the
offence may also be committed by a battery. In fact it is far more common for offences under s.47 to be
committed by battery rather than by an assault. Actual bodily harm is a triable-either-way offence. The maximum
sentence forABH is 5 years imprisonment.


Actus reus of ABH

Assault or battery
which causes
Actual bodily harm


To constitute an offence under s.47 all the elements of an assault or battery must be present. However, some
factors which may make an assault or battery lawful can not be applied to make an offence under s.47 lawful in
particular:


Lawful ABH

Reasonable punishment of a child S.58 Children Act 2004
Consent
A-G ref no 6 of 1980 [1981] QB 715 (fist fight two teens)

It used to be lawful for parents or others in loco parentis to use reasonable force in order to chastise children:

R v Hopley (1860) 2 F&F 202 (Schoolmaster He wrote to a pupil's father to obtain consent to chastise a13 year old
boy- father replied agreeing to the course of action-D beat the boy repeatedly for two and a half hours with a thick
stick. The boy died.) Cockburn LJ Held D guilty.

However, English law regarding lawful chastisement was held to be in breach of the European Convention of
Human Rights:

A v UK (1999) 27 EHRR 611 (Step-father beat child raised reasonable punishment as defense V applied Art.3 of
ECHR and won)
Lawful chastisement was abolished by s.58 of the Children Act 2004 and replaced with reasonable punishment of a
child. This can not be used as a defence in relation to ABH, GBH or wounding but may be allowed in assault and
battery only.
The assault or battery must cause actual bodily harm

This requires a consideration of both factual (R v White D poisons mom mom dies for other reasons liable onf
for attempt but for established )and legal (R v Dalloway - Horse carriage-child runs out and is killed -holding the
reins not the culpable act; R v Benge misread timetable train tracks) causation.


Actual Bodily Harm
The meaning of actual bodily harm was considered in:

R v Miller [1954] 2 All ER 529 (No rape in marriage D raped V held ABH)

Lynsky J:
"Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the
victim"

R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 (Psychiatric assault amounting to ABH)

LJ Hobhouse:

"The word "actual" indicates that the injury (although there is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so
trivial as to be wholly insignificant."

Bodily harm

Bodily harm can include psychiatric injury see:

R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 (Psychiatric assault amounting to ABH)

R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 (Silent telephone calls amounting to assault )

Bodily harm also includes the cutting off of hair:

DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Cut off ex-GFs ponytail)

Mens rea of Actual Bodily Harm

The mens rea of ABH is intention or reckless (subjective) as to the assault or battery. There is no requirement that
the defendant intended or was reckless as to the injury inflicted:

R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4 (A young woman aged 21 accepted a lift from the defendant at a party to take
her to another party. She had not met the man before and it was 3.00 am. The defendant drove in a different
direction to where he told her he was taking her and then stopped in a remote place and started making sexual
advances towards her. She refused his advances and he drove off at speed. He then started making further
advances whilst driving and she jumped out of the moving car to escape him. She suffered from concussion and
cuts and bruises. The defendant was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. He appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering actual bodily harm from
his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her jumping out of the car and therefore her actions
amounted to a novus actus interveniens.
Held:
There is no need to establish an intention or recklessness as to the level of force under s.47. It is sufficient to
establish that the defendant had intention or was reckless as to the assault or battery.)