Rhodes v OPO
The tort in Wilkinson v Downton requires conduct directed at the claimant, without justification, with an intention to cause physical or psychiatric harm or severe distress, and the publication of a memoir was justified.
Facts
James Rhodes, a concert pianist, wrote a memoir describing in graphic detail the sexual abuse he had suffered as a child, and its effects on him, including self harm. His former wife sought an injunction to prevent publication, on behalf of their son, who had psychological difficulties, arguing that reading the book would cause the son psychiatric harm, under the tort in Wilkinson v Downton.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the injunction should be discharged. Lady Hale and Lord Toulson said that the tort has three elements: conduct directed towards the claimant, for which there is no justification or reasonable excuse; an intention to cause physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress; and resulting physical or recognised psychiatric harm. The book was not directed at the son, and there was every justification for publishing it, because the author had the right to tell his story to the world, and the public had an interest in hearing it. Recklessness was not enough for the mental element.
Related cases on trespass to the person
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- F v West Berkshire Health Authority (Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation)) [1990] 2 AC 1
- Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67
- Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44
- Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692
Studying tort 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.
