REGINA v Fook

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24th February 1992, after a trial at the Crown Court at Southwark before His Honour Judge Bernard Charles QC and a Jury, the Appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The offence arose from an incident on 30th May 1991, where the Appellant was alleged to have assaulted the Victim, a foreign student lodging at a house in Lewisham. The household suspected the Victim of stealing an engagement ring, leading to an aggressive interrogation by the Appellant and others. The Appellant forcibly took the Victim upstairs, locked him in a room, removed his keys and personal papers, and assaulted him with blows and knees causing bruising. The Victim, frightened of further violence, attempted to escape by climbing out of a window using a makeshift rope, but fell and sustained injuries. At trial, the defence denied any assault causing injury, attributing injuries solely to the fall. The prosecution alleged the assault caused actual bodily harm, including psychiatric injury, relying solely on the Victim's evidence of feeling abused, humiliated, threatened, and frightened. The trial Judge directed the Jury that a hysterical or nervous condition could amount to actual bodily harm, and the Jury convicted the Appellant on the single count under section 47.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Jury were correctly directed on the meaning of "actual bodily harm" under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
2. Whether psychiatric injury, without medical or expert evidence, can constitute actual bodily harm.
3. Whether the trial Judge's direction that a hysterical or nervous condition amounts to actual bodily harm was legally correct.
4. Whether the conviction should stand given the absence of evidence supporting psychiatric injury.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Jury were misdirected as the trial Judge allowed the possibility that a hysterical or nervous condition alone could amount to actual bodily harm.
• There was no evidence of psychiatric injury capable of supporting the allegation of actual bodily harm.
• The allegation of psychiatric injury should not have been left to the Jury without expert evidence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The bruising to the Victim's face and head constituted actual bodily harm.
• Even if no physical injury resulted from the assault, the Victim's mental state—being abused, humiliated, threatened, and frightened—amounted to actual bodily harm.
• The Victim's extreme reaction, including escaping through the window, demonstrated a nervous or hysterical condition caused by the assault.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the meaning of "actual bodily harm" as used in section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, emphasizing that the phrase should retain its ordinary natural meaning. "Bodily harm" includes injury to all parts of the body, including the nervous system and brain, thus encompassing psychiatric injury. However, the Court distinguished between actual psychiatric injury and mere emotions such as fear, distress, or panic, which do not amount to actual bodily harm.

The Court criticised the trial Judge's direction to the Jury that a hysterical or nervous condition alone could constitute actual bodily harm, noting this was a misdirection likely to confuse the Jury. The Court stressed that where psychiatric injury is alleged, expert evidence is generally required to support such a claim. In the absence of expert evidence or an admission by the defence, the question of psychiatric injury should not be left to the Jury.

The Court further reasoned that the prosecution’s reliance solely on the Victim’s subjective feelings of fear and humiliation, without medical or psychiatric evidence, was insufficient to establish actual bodily harm. The Court underscored that the aggravated assault offence requires proof of some injury beyond mere apprehension or emotional distress.

Consequently, the Court found that the directions to the Jury were legally defective and that there was no evidence to support the allegation of psychiatric injury. Since the indictment did not include a lesser alternative count, the conviction could not stand.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and quashed the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction under section 47 is overturned due to improper Jury directions and insufficient evidence of psychiatric injury. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the limits of "actual bodily harm" to exclude mere emotions without expert evidence. The decision reinforces the necessity for precise Jury directions and evidential support when psychiatric injury is alleged in assault cases.