Introduction
Within the realm of criminal law, “ABH” is a commonly used abbreviation for "Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm." This is a specific criminal offense, as defined in section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which addresses acts of violence resulting in actual bodily harm.
Technical Principles:
The key elements of an ABH offense consist of:
-
An assault or battery: This requires proof of an action which caused the victim to fear immediate unlawful violence, or the intentional and unwanted application of physical force to the victim. This, therefore, constitutes the actus reus of the offense.
-
Actual Bodily Harm: This refers to an injury, which has interfered with the comfort or health of the victim, that is more than merely transient or trifling. This is therefore, a question of fact for the jury. Cases such as R v Chan Fook [1994] demonstrate that psychiatric harm can be recognised as ABH for legal purposes, provided it constitutes a clinically-recognised condition which is more than merely transient or trifling.
-
Causation: The prosecution must prove that the assault or battery directly caused the actual bodily harm.
-
Mens Rea: It does not have to be shown that the accused specifically intended to cause such harm, or any harm. Instead, it is sufficient to prove that the defendant has intentionally or recklessly caused the application of force that resulted in the actual bodily harm. The ruling in R v Savage, Parmenter [1992] confirms that the intent to cause some harm must be shown.
Key Requirements:
- The harm must result from an assault or battery. Without an assault or battery, the harm may be an offense but will not be assault occasioning ABH.
- It must be actual; there is a ‘de minimis’ principle in operation, which means that trivial injuries are not covered by ABH.
- The act need not be intentional, although it should be shown that it was either deliberate or reckless.
- Psychiatric harm is included provided that it is more than transient, and an expert can testify to it as an identifiable clinical condition.
Specific Examples:
- A pushes B, causing B to fall and hit her head on the ground, resulting in a concussion. This constitutes ABH.
- A spits on B, who suffers from a skin condition. While spitting is not in itself a form of violence, causing physical contact will satisfy the requirement for battery as a component of the assault. If the victim has an existing skin condition, this may also constitute actual bodily harm.
- A punches B, who feels distressed but has no physical injury. The stress and distress caused would not be sufficient to constitute ABH.
Conclusion
The offense of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm remains a significant aspect of criminal law, occupying a position between common assault and more serious offenses like Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). As established in R v Miller [1954], the courts have consistently maintained that ABH requires a higher threshold of harm than common assault, yet does not demand the gravity of injury associated with GBH under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The evolution of case law, particularly through DPP v Smith [2006] and R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998], has expanded our understanding of what constitutes actual bodily harm, recognizing that modern interpretations must account for both physical and psychological injuries. This principle was further reinforced in R v Chan-Fook [1994], where the Court of Appeal emphasized that bodily harm encompasses any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, provided it is more than merely transient.
Legal practitioners must carefully consider the totality of circumstances when advising on ABH charges, paying particular attention to the causative link between the assault and the resulting harm, as highlighted in R v Roberts [1971]. The mens rea requirement, as clarified in R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992], remains a crucial element in distinguishing between intentional and reckless acts, though both can form the basis of criminal liability.
In practice, the interpretation and application of ABH continues to evolve through judicial precedent, maintaining its relevance in addressing intermediate-level violence while providing courts with the flexibility to consider modern contexts and circumstances. This understanding is essential for legal professionals working within the criminal justice system, particularly in advising clients and making charging decisions that appropriately reflect the gravity of violent conduct.
