R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
S.47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Actual Bodily Harm – Psychological Harm
Facts
The appellant, Mr Chan-Fook, had accused the victim, a lodger, of the theft of his fiancé’s engagement ring. The appellant, after striking the victim several times, locked him in a second-floor bedroom. The victim tried to escape and suffered quite serious injuries. The appellant was convicted under s.47 OAPA of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Curiously, however, the harm identified by the prosecution was the psychological suffering of the victim, rather than his physical injuries, although no medical evidence was produced. The trial judge directed the jury that an assault which induced a ‘nervous and hysterical’ reaction in the victim would amount to actual bodily harm. Mr Chan-Fook was convicted on this basis and leave given to appeal.
Issues
The principal issue on appeal was whether psychiatric harm could, in principle, amount to ABH for the purposes of s.47 OAPA. The Court of Appeal were also required to consider whether expert psychiatric evidence would be a necessary requirement in such cases, as well as the general meaning of actual bodily harm, which had heretofore been understood as encompassing “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”.
Decision/Outcome
In upholding the appeal, the CA confirmed that, whilst ABH could embrace recognised psychiatric harm:
“[I]t does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress nor panic nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition”.
Moreover, in the absence of expert medical evidence (or a concession from the defence), the question of whether an assault occasioned actual bodily harm should not be put to a jury.
The CA also confirmed that the phrase ‘actual bodily harm’ is to be given its ‘ordinary meaning’ but that the word harm implied an ‘injury’ of some sort, which need not be permanent but which:
[M]ust not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant” ()
This judgement therefore implies a de minimis threshold to the notion of actual bodily harm.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the law established in R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689. The core principles have been affirmed and built upon by subsequent authorities. In particular, the House of Lords in R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147 confirmed that recognised psychiatric illness can constitute bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, consistent with Chan-Fook. The requirement that psychiatric injury be a clinically recognisable condition, rather than mere emotion or distress, was further endorsed by the House of Lords in R v Dhaliwal [2006] EWCA Crim 1139 (Court of Appeal) and remains good law. The de minimis threshold described in the article continues to reflect the accepted legal position. No statutory amendment to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has altered the legal position described. Readers should note that the Law Commission has made recommendations for reform of the 1861 Act over many years, but as of the date of this note no reforming legislation has been enacted. The article can therefore be read with confidence as an accurate summary of the case and its continuing legal significance.
