Facts
- The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls to three women over several months.
- The calls were frequent, often occurring late at night, and caused significant distress and fear to the victims.
- One victim described feeling "terrified" and "frozen with fear," while another experienced panic attacks and difficulty sleeping.
- No words were spoken during the calls, but the persistent and distressing nature of the conduct led to the perception of threat.
- The defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- He appealed the conviction, arguing that silent telephone calls could not constitute assault as they lacked an explicit threat or physical act.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, and the case was further appealed to the House of Lords.
Issues
- Whether silent telephone calls, absent of spoken words or direct threats, can constitute assault under UK law.
- Whether the psychological impact and fear caused by non-verbal conduct satisfy the legal elements of assault.
- Whether the requirement of apprehension of immediate violence can be met without physical proximity or gesture.
- Whether recklessness in causing fear is sufficient to fulfill the mens rea for assault.
Decision
- The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal and confirmed that silent telephone calls can constitute assault.
- The court held that the creation of fear or apprehension of immediate violence in the victim is sufficient to establish assault, regardless of the presence or absence of spoken words.
- The mode of communication (including silence) is secondary to its effect on the victim, provided the victim perceives an immediate threat.
- The court found that the defendant's conduct was reckless, as he was aware that his actions were likely to cause fear.
- The psychological impact of the calls was accepted as sufficient to meet the actus reus and mens rea requirements for assault.
Legal Principles
- Assault under UK law does not require physical contact; it is established when an individual intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
- The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and common law definition both recognize psychological harm and the apprehension of violence as elements of assault.
- Communication of a threat can occur non-verbally, and the presence of silence does not negate the possibility of assault.
- The immediacy of apprehended violence does not require physical proximity as long as the victim perceives an imminent threat.
- Recklessness, as well as intent, is sufficient to establish the mens rea for assault.
Conclusion
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 established that silent telephone calls can amount to assault if they cause the victim to fear immediate violence, recognizing psychological harm and non-verbal threats within the scope of assault and affirming that both the effect on the victim and recklessness or intent are central to liability.