H v Director of Public Prosecutions

In an assault occasioning actual bodily harm case, the prosecution need not identify the particular injury caused by the defendant where the tribunal is satisfied that the defendant’s assault caused some actual bodily harm. The tribunal may draw that inference from the proved facts, including the manner of the assault and the victim’s resulting injuries. The essential question is whether the defendant’s assault caused injury amounting to actual bodily harm, rather than whether every injury suffered by the victim can be attributed to that assault.

H, aged 14 at the relevant time, was convicted by the Thames Youth Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and received a supervision order and a curfew order. The evidence showed that H chased M and forced him to the ground, causing his head to strike the road. M had sustained cuts and bruises during a wider incident, but the justices did not identify which particular injury was caused by H. H appealed by way of case stated, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that his conduct caused actual bodily harm. The central issue was whether the justices were entitled to infer causation without identifying a particular injury attributable to H.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The justices had been correctly directed that they had to be satisfied that H assaulted M, that M suffered actual bodily harm, and that the harm was caused by H’s assault.

2. The justices were entitled to find that H forced M to the ground and caused his head to strike the road. They were also entitled to infer that this caused actual bodily harm, having regard to the evidence of M’s injuries.

3. It was unnecessary to identify the particular injury caused by H. It was sufficient that the justices were satisfied that some injury amounting to actual bodily harm resulted from H’s assault. The fact that other injuries arose during the earlier incident did not prevent that conclusion.

4. The reference to Chan Fook (1999) Cr.App.R 147 did not alter the result. The observations relied on concerned inferences in the context of alleged psychiatric injury, whereas the present case concerned physical injury proved by the facts.

5. All questions posed in the case stated were answered affirmatively. The conviction was upheld and the usual costs order was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed and the Thames Youth Court’s conviction was upheld.
• Thames Youth Court: H was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to a 12-month supervision order and a three-month curfew order.