R v Ireland [1997] UKHL 34

Facts

  • The case merged two appeals: R v Ireland and Burstow.
  • In the Burstow case, the defendant harassed a former partner through repeated phone calls, hate mail, unannounced visits, and targeting her neighbors over several months.
  • The victim suffered severe depressive illness as a result of this behavior.
  • The prosecution argued that sustained psychological harassment causing such injury qualified as "bodily harm" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, although no physical violence occurred.
  • The defense argued that the word "inflict" in the statute required physical force, contending that psychological trauma alone could not fulfill this requirement.
  • Both cases were heard together by the House of Lords to address these legal issues.

Issues

  1. Whether psychiatric injury can constitute "bodily harm" under sections 18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  2. Whether the word "inflict" in section 20 of the Act requires the application of physical force or can include harm caused by psychological means.
  3. Whether establishing a causal link between defendant's conduct and psychiatric harm, absent physical violence, is sufficient for conviction.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that psychiatric injury may amount to "bodily harm" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  • It was determined that the word "inflict" in section 20 does not require evidence of physical force; causing severe psychological harm is sufficient.
  • The ruling clarified that causation between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s psychiatric injury is necessary to establish liability.
  • The Lords relied on the principle established in R v Chan Fook and extended it across sections 18, 20, and 47.
  • The court recognized the importance of legal recourse for victims of psychological maltreatment, notably in cases of repeated harassment.

Legal Principles

  • "Bodily harm" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 includes severe psychiatric injury.
  • The term "inflict" in section 20 does not require physical force but signifies causation of harm, which includes psychological injury.
  • A conviction requires proof that the defendant’s actions were a substantial cause of the victim’s psychiatric harm, generally supported by medical evidence.
  • The scope of legal responsibility extends to harm caused by psychological abuse, not limited to physical violence.

Conclusion

R v Ireland [1997] UKHL 34 established that severe psychiatric injury is encompassed within the meaning of "bodily harm" under the 1861 Act, with the House of Lords confirming that "inflict" denotes causation rather than physical force, thereby broadening criminal liability to cover psychological harm.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal