## Facts

- The case concerned the definition of "actual bodily harm" (ABH) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA).
- Before this decision, ABH was interpreted primarily as relating to physical injuries.
- In this instance, the prosecution's case relied on psychological suffering as the alleged harm rather than physical injury.
- The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether psychological or psychiatric harm could constitute ABH.
- The Court also considered what evidentiary threshold and safeguards should apply when such harm is alleged.

## Issues

1. Whether psychological harm can amount to "actual bodily harm" within the meaning of section 47 of the OAPA 1861.
2. What evidentiary standard is required to prove psychological harm as ABH.
3. Whether mere emotional reactions, without clinical recognition, suffice for ABH.
4. What procedural safeguards exist to ensure objectivity and fairness in establishing psychiatric injury as ABH.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that actual bodily harm is not confined to physical injury but may include psychiatric harm.
- Mere emotions such as fear, distress, or panic do not meet the threshold for ABH; the harm must be an identified clinical condition.
- Proof of psychiatric harm as ABH requires expert medical evidence or unequivocal defense concession.
- The court established a de minimis threshold for actionable harm, requiring that the injury interfere with health or comfort and not be trivial or insignificant.

## Legal Principles

- "Actual bodily harm" under OAPA 1861 s 47 includes both physical injury and psychiatric injury, but not mere emotional states.
- Emotional distress or panic is insufficient; the psychiatric harm must constitute an identifiable clinical condition recognized by the medical profession.
- Objective assessment is necessary—expert medical testimony or defense concession is required where psychiatric harm is alleged.
- The de minimis principle excludes trivial or minor harm from the statutory definition of ABH.
- The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that the harm alleged meets the recognized clinical threshold.

## Conclusion

R v Chan Fook clarified that actual bodily harm under section 47 OAPA extends to clinically recognized psychiatric injury, provided this is supported by expert medical evidence or a clear concession by the defense; mere emotions do not suffice. This decision established clear legal and evidentiary standards for distinguishing actionable psychological harm from ordinary distress, ensuring objectivity and fairness within criminal proceedings for assault.


R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 (CA)