Chapter 5 Interactive key cases

Non-fatal offences against the person
It is not in the public interest that a person should wound or cause ABH harm to another for no good reason and, in the absence of such a reason, the victim’s consent afforded no defence to a charge under s 20 or s 47 OAPA; that the satisfying of sadomasochistic desires did not constitute such a good reason. This decision was upheld at the European Court of Human Rights, see Laskey v UK (1997).
A consultant psychiatrist stated that V was suffering from a severe depressive illness. D appealed against his conviction under s 20 on two grounds: 1. depressive illness is not bodily harm, and 2. harm cannot be inflicted indirectly. 1. On the meaning of bodily harm: see Ireland. 2. On the meaning of inflict: inflict includes the infliction of psychiatric injury on another and does not mean that whatever causes the harm has to be applied directly to V. Lord Steyn held there is no radical divergence between inflict (s 20) and cause (s 18), but the words are not synonymous.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that it was sufficient for the prosecution to prove a fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future. It was not essential that V was able to see the potential perpetrator of the violence, and conduct accompanying words was capable of making the words an assault.
He was charged with offences under s 20 OAPA on the basis that he had recklessly transmitted the disease to the women when they did not know of, and did not consent to, the risk of infection. A person who, knowing that he is suffering a serious sexual disease, recklessly transmits it to another through consensual sexual intercourse may be guilty of inflicting GBH, contrary to s 20 OAPA. V’s consent to sexual intercourse is not, of itself, to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease; but if V does consent to such a risk that would provide D with a defence to a charge under s 20.
  1. On the assault issue: where the making of a silent telephone call caused fear of immediate and unlawful violence, the caller would be guilty of an assault, if he formed mens rea.
  2. On the meaning of bodily harm: in the light of contemporary knowledge covering recognizable psychiatric injuries, and bearing in mind the best current scientific appreciation of the link between the body and psychiatric injury, recognizable psychiatric illnesses fell within the phrase ‘bodily harm’.
Her conviction for a s 20 offence was substituted with a conviction for a s 47 offence. Section 20 requires the prosecution to prove D foresaw someharm to V, but the s 47 offence does not. The prosecution must simply prove the offence of a technical assault or (as here) a battery.
D was a tattooist who undertook body modification on several Vs at their request, including providing nipple and ear removal. This was held to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. It did not fall into the categories or surgery or personal adornment in Brown. D was not qualified to assess the consent of V or ensure that proper medical procedures were in place.
Back to top

Printed from , all rights reserved. © Oxford University Press, 2024