Divisional Court
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.1.11.25838 |
| Published date | 01 January 2004 |
| Date | 01 January 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Actual Bodily Harm: Sufficiency of Momentary Loss of
Consciousness
R (on the application of T) vDPP [2003] EWHC 266, [2003]
Crim LR 622
An interesting issue arose in this case before the Administrative Court
on the constituent actus reus ingredients of the offence of assault occa-
sioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861. A group of youths, including the defendant, were
walking in a public park. Evidence was presented that the victim had
been chased by the youths, having previously been punched in the eye
by one of them. He fell to the ground, and on seeing the defendant
coming towards him, he covered his head with his arms and was kicked.
Apparently, the victim momentarily lost consciousness and remembered
nothing until being woken by a police officer who had seen the incident.
Subsequently, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning ac-
tual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861. At issue before the youth court was whether the momentary loss
of consciousness constituted, or was capable of amounting to, actual
bodily harm. A positive response was elicited from the justices who
found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed by way of case
stated, asserting that a momentary loss of consciousness could not be
actual bodily harm because it was inherently transient and precedent
established that although an injury did not need to be permanent it had
to be more than merely transient or trifling.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
, on the plain words of the section, the
justices had been entitled to find that the assault carried out by the
defendant had occasioned actual bodily harm. It was categorically affirmed
that the loss of consciousness as suffered by the victim in this case fell
within the meaning of the word ‘harm’. Moreover, the loss of conscious-
ness involved an injurious impairment to the victim’s sensory functions
and, thus, it was transparent that the bodily harm was ‘actual’.
C
OMMENTARY
The outcome in this case is significant on a number of different levels.
Three points are worthy of consideration, and are addressed below: (1)
the constituents of ‘actual bodily harm’; (2) requisite mens rea to estab-
lish the s. 47 offence; and (3) the interrelationship with the lesser
offence of common law battery.
1. The constituents of ‘actual bodily harm’
In his judgment Maurice Kay J sought to interpret earlier precedents on
the meaning of ‘actual bodily harm’. It is instructive to examine further
the terminology previously addressed. In DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290,
11
To continue reading
Request your trial