D, R v

D, R v

Psychological injury not amounting to a recognisable psychiatric illness does not constitute 'bodily harm' under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The established legal distinction between psychiatric illness and other forms of psychological harm is binding, and only the former can ground a prosecution for actual or grievous bodily harm. As the Crown's case did not establish a recognised psychiatric illness, there was no case to answer.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Grievous Bodily Harm, Psychological Injury, Psychiatric Injury, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Causation
Criminal Law Manslaughter Grievous Bodily Harm Psychological Injury Psychiatric Injury Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Causation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether psychological injury not amounting to recognisable psychiatric illness constitutes 'bodily harm' under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution can proceed for manslaughter or inflicting grievous bodily harm where the alleged harm is psychological but not a recognised psychiatric illness

Ratio Decidendi

Psychological injury not amounting to a recognisable psychiatric illness does not constitute 'bodily harm' under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The established legal distinction between psychiatric illness and other forms of psychological harm is binding, and only the former can ground a prosecution for actual or grievous bodily harm. As the Crown's case did not establish a recognised psychiatric illness, there was no case to answer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed

Orders

  • Respondent acquitted; terminating ruling of no case to answer confirmed