R v Ireland [1998]
Share
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 centred around the interpretation of Sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) and whether recognisable psychiatric illness could be deemed as 'bodily harm' and if harm could be inflicted without direct physical force applied to the victim. Additionally, the case explored the concept that assault could be committed through words and gestures alone, emphasising that even silence, if threatening, could be sufficient.
The factual background of the case involved two conjoined cases where the defendants engaged in making silent phone calls to women, resulting in the women suffering psychiatric damage. The defendants were subsequently convicted under Sections 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, affirming that the convictions of the defendants were justly made. The court clarified that under Sections 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861, recognisable psychiatric illness indeed fell within the definition of bodily harm, and harm could be inflicted without the direct application of force to the victim. Moreover, the court established the precedent that assault could be committed solely through words and gestures, with silence, if threatening, being recognised as a potential form of assault.
Lord Steyn, in his notable contribution to the judgment, underscored the interchangeable nature of the terms "cause" and "inflict" in the context of a criminal case. This decision marked a significant legal precedent by expanding the scope of harm in assault cases to include psychological and psychiatric consequences, not limited to physical injuries caused by direct force.
The factual background of the case involved two conjoined cases where the defendants engaged in making silent phone calls to women, resulting in the women suffering psychiatric damage. The defendants were subsequently convicted under Sections 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, affirming that the convictions of the defendants were justly made. The court clarified that under Sections 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861, recognisable psychiatric illness indeed fell within the definition of bodily harm, and harm could be inflicted without the direct application of force to the victim. Moreover, the court established the precedent that assault could be committed solely through words and gestures, with silence, if threatening, being recognised as a potential form of assault.
Lord Steyn, in his notable contribution to the judgment, underscored the interchangeable nature of the terms "cause" and "inflict" in the context of a criminal case. This decision marked a significant legal precedent by expanding the scope of harm in assault cases to include psychological and psychiatric consequences, not limited to physical injuries caused by direct force.
