Miller (1954) established that ABH includes any hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort. R(T) v DPP (2003) found that loss of consciousness, even momentarily, constitutes ABH. Psychiatric injuries can be ABH but not mere emotions; they require an identifiable clinical condition like Burstow (1997) where stalking caused severe depression. The mens rea for common assault is enough for ABH; the defendant must intend or recklessly subject the victim to unlawful force as in Roberts (1971) and Savage (1991), even if they did not intend or foresee actual bodily harm.

1. Section 47 (ABH) OAPA Key Cases.
Case Facts Principles
(You don’t need the facts for ABH was held to be ‘any hurt
Miller
the Miller case) or injury calculated to
(1954)
interfere with the health or
comfort of the victim’.
D and a group of other youths
R(T) v DPP chased V. V fell to the ground, Loss of consciousness even
he was kicked by D and lost momentarily was held to be
(2003)
consciousness. He remembered Actual Bodily Harm.
nothing until being woken by a
police officer.
Psychiatric injury is classed as ABH.
(You don’t need the facts for However, H of L pointed out that it
Chan Fook does not include ‘mere emotions such
the Chan Fook case)
(1994) as fear, distress or panic’ nor does it
include ‘states of mind that are not
themselves evidence of some
identifiable clinical condition.’
D carried out an 8 month campaign The H of L approved the decision in
against an ex-girlfriend, including Chan Fook where it said that ‘bodily
Burstow silent and abusive phone calls, hate harm’ in ss18, 20 and 47 of OAPA
(1997) mail and stalking. This caused V to (1861) must be interpreted so as to
suffer from serve depression. D was include recognisable psychiatric
convicted with s.20 OAPA. illness.
D was driving a car and made advances to the The mens rea for of a common assault is
girl in the passenger seat. He tried to take enough for the mens rea of S.47. D must
Roberts her coat off. She feared he was going to intend or be subjectively reckless as to
commit a more serious offence and jumped whether the V fears or is subjected to
(1971) from the car as it was travelling at 30 mph. unlawful force. There is no need for the D
As a result she was slightly injuried. D was to intend or be reckless as to whether
found guilty of ABH. actual bodily harm is caused.
D threw her beer over another woman The H of L confirmed the
in a pub. The glass slipped from her decision in Roberts. The
Savage hand and V was cut by it. D had not
intention to apply unlawful
(1991) intended her to be injured, nor had
she realised there was a risk of
force is sufficient for the s.47
injury. She was convicted of s.47. offence.