Chan Fook Test Watch
Page 13.. under (a) 4th line..
R v Chan-Fook (1994)
^[ABH - include psychiatric harm but not emotions – escape case]
D subjected V to questioning about the theft of a ring belonging to D’s fiancée. D then dragged V upstairs to a room and locked him in. V feared D’s return and injured himself when he fell through a window.
Held: ‘Actual bodily harm ‘; includes psychiatric injury but does not include emotions, such as fear or panic. ABH does not include states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition. Only expert evidence to this effect should be made to the jury regarding psychiatric injury.
Per curiam: the phrase ‘state of mind’ is unscientific, confusing and should be avoided when considering whether psychiatric injury has been caused.
Verdict: Not Guilty
The case in the question was similar whereas someone was injured falling out the window of a building someone set fire to.. Maybe the "test" so to speak is that of the blame for the injury which can either be caused by the defendants actions or the victims fear.
Sound any good?
The actual case SUMMARISED is basically some dude trying to rob Chan Fook, chan fook catching him, locking him up in a room and the robber fearing Actual Bodily Harm, so he jumped out of the window and got hurt. In the exam I wouldnt explain this case anyway because you'll probably have to mention 4-5 other cases and explain one out of them, I explained R v Roberts in Jan.
The case you have posted above is incorrect Nero.