T v Director of Public Prosecutions

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an appeal by case stated from a decision of justices for the county of Hertford acting in the Petty Sessions Area of West Hertfordshire, arising from an adjudication at a Youth Court sitting at Hemel Hempstead. The appellant, referred to as "T" in compliance with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

The Youth Court found that on 18 November 2001, the victim was approached and headbutted by a group of boys, though the appellant was not the initial assailant. After being refused entry to a nightclub, the victim returned to the group and was punched in the eye by an unknown assailant. The victim attempted to flee but was chased by the group including the appellant. When the victim fell, he was kicked by the appellant, causing a momentary loss of consciousness. The injuries, including a bloody nose and swelling, were noted but not conclusively linked to the appellant's kick. The Youth Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to a community punishment order of 40 hours and ordered to pay costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether momentary loss of consciousness is sufficient to constitute "actual bodily harm" under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant's counsel relied on the judgment in R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498, emphasizing the word "transient" in the context of "bodily harm".
• It was argued that a momentary loss of consciousness should be considered merely transient and therefore insufficient to amount to actual bodily harm.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent contended that the momentary loss of consciousness caused by the appellant's kick did amount to actual bodily harm.
• It was argued that the exclusion of harm that is "transient and trifling" in Donovan does not preclude harm that is transient but not trifling.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by emphasizing that the term "actual bodily harm" is not defined in the statute and should be given its ordinary meaning. The court referred to R v Chan-Fook to affirm that actual bodily harm must be more than trivial or insignificant. The court rejected the appellant's argument that momentary loss of consciousness is merely transient and thus insufficient, noting that the wording in Donovan excludes harm that is "transient and trifling," not harm that is transient but significant.

The court considered the precedent in R v Miller, where momentary unconsciousness was held to amount to actual bodily harm, and found no error in the justices’ reliance on that case. The court further clarified that the passage from Donovan relied upon by the appellant was not part of the case’s ratio and should not be treated as a statutory definition.

Ultimately, the court held that the justices were entitled to find that the appellant’s assault occasioned actual bodily harm by causing momentary loss of consciousness, which involved an injurious impairment to the victim’s sensory functions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the finding that momentary loss of consciousness constitutes actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The court did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed existing legal principles regarding the interpretation of actual bodily harm.