R v Ireland and Burstow is a landmark decision by the House of Lords that significantly developed English criminal law relating to assault and bodily harm. The case dealt with two appeals consolidated for hearing, focusing on whether psychiatric injury could be legally classified as bodily harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA), and whether the term ‘inflict’ required physical force. The judgement clarified the scope of assault and actual bodily harm (ABH), expanding protection for victims suffering psychological harm caused by harassment or stalking.

Case Background and Facts of R v Ireland and Burstow

The case involved two defendants: Mr Robert Ireland and Mr Anthony Burstow, who were prosecuted for offences under the OAPA 1861 based on conduct that resulted in psychiatric injury to their respective victims.

R v Ireland

In R v Ireland, Mr Ireland was convicted under Section 47 of the OAPA 1861 for causing actual bodily harm to three women. Ireland had engaged in a campaign of harassment consisting mainly of a large number of silent telephone calls to the women. These calls often occurred late at night and were deliberately designed to cause fear and distress. Ireland did not speak during the calls, but the repeated silence itself caused the victims to suffer psychiatric injury in the form of severe anxiety and fear.

R v Burstow

In R v Burstow, Anthony Burstow was convicted under Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 for inflicting grievous bodily harm on his former partner. Burstow had engaged in a prolonged stalking and intimidation campaign lasting eight months. His conduct included silent phone calls, menacing messages, following the victim physically, and photographing her and her family. As a result, the victim developed a severe depressive illness, which was diagnosed as a psychiatric injury.

Burstow challenged his conviction, arguing that silence alone could not amount to assault or bodily harm and that psychiatric injury should not be regarded as bodily harm under the law.

Legal Issues

The case raised two principal legal issues:

1. Whether psychiatric injury can amount to ‘bodily harm’ within the meaning of Sections 18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
2. Whether the term ‘inflict’ in Section 20 requires the application of physical force, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to include causing harm indirectly.

Additionally, the House of Lords considered whether silent telephone calls could amount to an assault, given the absence of physical contact or verbal communication.

Statutory Provisions

The relevant statutory provisions were Sections 18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

• Section 18: Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
• Section 20: Inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding unlawfully, without intent.
• Section 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

These sections historically were interpreted as applying to physical injuries, but the case challenged whether psychological or psychiatric injury could be encompassed.

Prior Authority

A key prior authority discussed in the case was R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689, in which the Court of Appeal held that psychiatric injury could constitute actual bodily harm under Section 20 of the OAPA. However, the scope of this principle and its application to grievous bodily harm, and the interpretation of ‘inflict’ remained unclear.

House of Lords Judgement in R v Ireland and Burstow

The House of Lords delivered a unanimous judgement affirming the convictions of both Ireland and Burstow and provided important clarifications on the legal questions.

Psychiatric Injury as Bodily Harm

The Lords confirmed that psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm under Sections 18, 20, and 47 of the OAPA. Lord Steyn emphasised that the term bodily harm should be understood in a broad and modern sense, encompassing recognised psychiatric illnesses that cause actual injury to the mind.

Lord Steyn noted that the answer must be consistent across all relevant sections of the Act, building on the reasoning in R v Chan-Fook. The law must recognise and protect victims suffering from serious psychiatric harm caused by the defendant’s conduct.

He further recognised the importance of public policy in affording protection, especially to victims, often women, subjected to stalking or malicious harassment by former or unrequited partners.

Interpretation of ‘Inflict’

The House of Lords also addressed the interpretation of the term ‘inflict’ in Section 20. The court rejected the argument that ‘inflict’ requires the application of physical force. Instead, the term was interpreted as meaning that the defendant’s actions must be the cause of the bodily harm, whether physical or psychiatric.

This was a significant departure from previous interpretations that emphasised physical contact. It meant that indirect causes of harm, such as psychological harassment resulting in psychiatric injury, could satisfy the requirement of infliction under Section 20.

Assault and Silent Telephone Calls

Regarding the issue of assault by silent phone calls, the court held that an assault can occur without verbal communication or physical contact. The House of Lords reaffirmed that assault involves causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. This apprehension can be caused by silence or words, or even gestures.

Lord Steyn stated:

“The proposition that a gesture may amount to an assault, but that words can never suffice, is unrealistic and indefensible. A thing said is also a thing done. There is no reason why something said should be incapable of causing an apprehension of immediate personal violence.”

Silent telephone calls, which induce fear or apprehension of violence, therefore can amount to assault in English law.

However, the Lords clarified that the apprehension of violence must be immediate or imminent, typically within minutes rather than hours, to constitute assault.

Outcome

The House of Lords upheld the convictions of both Ireland and Burstow.

• Mr Ireland’s conviction under Section 47 for actual bodily harm caused by psychiatric injury resulting from silent phone calls was affirmed.
• Mr Burstow’s conviction under Section 20 for inflicting grievous bodily harm, by causing psychiatric injury through stalking and harassment, was also upheld.

Conclusion

R v Ireland and Burstow is a foundational case that redefined key concepts in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, particularly in relation to psychological harm. The House of Lords made clear that psychiatric injury is actionable bodily harm and that the term ‘inflict’ does not require physical force. It also affirmed that assault can be committed through silence or words alone, provided the victim apprehends immediate violence.