T v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2003] EWHC 266 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2003] EWHC 266 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
4 February 2003
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Statutory interpretation Actual bodily harm
Keywords
actual bodily harm momentary loss of consciousness section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 statutory interpretation transient and trifling harm appeal by case stated
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Momentary loss of consciousness may amount to actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statutory words are ordinary English words and require no judicial gloss. The injury need not be permanent, provided it is actual and not wholly insignificant. Earlier judicial descriptions must not be treated as statutory definitions. In particular, the relevant qualification is that harm must be more than transient and trifling; transience alone is insufficient to exclude it.

Factual background

The appellant was convicted by a Youth Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The victim had been kicked and had momentarily lost consciousness. The justices relied on R v Miller and concluded that the loss of consciousness amounted to actual bodily harm.

On appeal by case stated, the question was whether momentary loss of consciousness was sufficient to establish the offence.

Held

  1. The appeal was dismissed. The justices were entitled to convict on evidence that the victim had suffered momentary loss of consciousness.

  2. The words actual bodily harm in section 47 are ordinary statutory words. They require no elaboration or gloss. Harm means injury, and actual indicates that the injury must not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

  3. Loss of consciousness constitutes bodily harm because it is an injurious impairment of sensory functions. Its temporary nature does not prevent it from being actual bodily harm.

  4. The approach based on R v Donovan was flawed insofar as it treated transient harm as automatically outside the statutory meaning. The cited passage was not part of the ratio in that case, which concerned consent. Even on that passage’s terms, the exclusion is of harm that is transient and trifling, not transient or trifling.

  5. The justices were entitled to rely on R v Miller, but neither R v Miller nor R v Donovan provides a gloss on the statute. The correct approach is to return to the statutory language.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated dismissed. The Youth Court’s conviction was upheld.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.