Is depression GBH or ABH?

Hi guys.

I'm a little confused.

R v Burstow states that silent phone calls that lead to psychiatric illness in victim result in conviction of s20. GBH & wounding.

Whereas R v Ireland convicts the D on more or less the same facts for s47 ABH.

Both caused depression in their victim. Why was one convicted of one offence and the other one another?

I read the judgements and I dont think they mention the severity of the psychiatric illness.

No clue :s-smilie:

Any help would be nice, thanks!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1

tehforum

Original post by Yazooo

Any help would be nice, thanks!

But there is clear and (in this Court) unchallenged authority that actual bodily harm is capable of including psychiatric injury: Chan-Fook (Mike) (1994) 99 Cr. App. R. 147 . There can in this respect be no meaningful distinction between actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Whatever the intention of the original draftsman, this ruling is to be welcomed since it is now accepted that the distinction between physical and mental injury is by no means clear-cut, and psychiatric injury may often be manifested by physical symptoms, as in the present case where Mrs Sant suffered, as a direct result of the applicant's conduct, a loss of weight. The question posed at the outset of this judgment must accordingly be answered by this Court on the premise that “grievous bodily harm” can include psychiatric injury. This distinguishes the case from all others cited to us, which were concerned with physical violence whether direct or indirect.

Choose whichever, I'd still be inclined to choose s47

edit

in R v Ireland

She may fear the possibility of immediate personal violence. As a matter of law the caller may be guilty of an assault: whether he is or not will depend on the circumstance and in particular on the impact of the caller's potentially menacing call or calls on the victim. Such a prosecution case under section 47 may be fit to leave to the jury. and a trial judge may, depending on the circumstances, put a common sense consideration before the jury, namely what, if not the possibility of imminent personal violence, was the victim terrified about? I conclude that an assault may be committed in the particular factual circumstances which I have envisaged. For this reason I reject the submission that as a matter of law a silent telephone caller cannot ever be guilty of an offence under section 47. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by answering the vague certified question in Reg. v. Ireland .

It seems to be the distinction between s47 and s20 is drawn between the circumstances and the facts of the case - not the result i.e. depression.

Depression isn't mentioned at all, except in the opening paragraph in Lord Steyn's judgment, so I'd still be inclined to use s20

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2

username1099984

ABH is not limited to flesh and bones of the victim, according to R v Chan-Fook, so this can include psychiatric and mental illnesses that are diagnosable by a doctor.

Bare in mind that Actual Bodily Harm, actual means it has to be harm that is not too trivial but wholly significant. So it can be ABH.

GBH; grievous bodily harm means serious harm or injury calculated to be serious

So it could be both

I think the question lies with the severity of depression, is it a permanent injury that will persist forever? In that case it should be GBH.

Is depression GBH or ABH?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you