R v Ireland; R v Burstow
Silent telephone calls can amount to an assault, and psychiatric injury can amount to actual or grievous bodily harm.
Facts
In two appeals heard together, the defendants harassed women. Mr Ireland made repeated silent telephone calls to three women, sometimes breathing heavily, causing them psychiatric illness. Mr Burstow carried out an eight month campaign of harassment against a woman with whom he had had a short relationship, including silent calls, letters and stalking, causing her severe depression. Mr Ireland was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and Mr Burstow of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the convictions. Lord Steyn said that a recognisable psychiatric illness can amount to bodily harm, including grievous bodily harm, but that mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic are not enough. Silent telephone calls can amount to an assault if the caller intends to make the victim fear immediate violence, because the victim may fear that the caller is nearby and might arrive at her door. The House also held that grievous bodily harm can be inflicted without a direct or indirect application of force, so psychiatric injury caused by stalking can be inflicted under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Related cases on non-fatal offences against the person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Michael) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1571
- JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
- Logdon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1976] Crim LR 121
- R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560
- R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
