R v Burstow [1997] UKHL 34 House of Lords (Considered at same time as R V Ireland)

The defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the relationship and he could not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of harassment against her over a period of 8 months. He made silent telephone calls, abusive telephone calls, he appeared at her house, took photos of her, distributed offensive cards to her neighbours and hate mail. As a result she suffered a severe depressive illness. Two questions for the court were:

1. whether psychiatric injury could amount to bodily harm under the OAPA 1861

2. whether a person could be liable under s.20 where there was no direct or indirect application of physical force on a person.

Held:

1. Psychiatric injury could amount to bodily harm. Dicta in Chan-Fook applied.

2. The word 'inflict' in s.20 simply means cause. There was thus no requirement that physical force is directly or indirectly applied.

Back to lecture outline on wounding and GBH