R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54
Whether indirect, reckless force can be considered ‘inflicted harm’ for a finding of bodily harm.
Facts
The defendant decided to play a practice joke on theatre goers by barring the exits to a playhouse, cutting the lights on the exits, and proclaiming that there was a fire to the audience, so as to cause panic. Resultantly, the audience rushed to exit the playhouse, during which several audience members sustained severe injuries from trampling, inter alia.
Issues
Could the defendant be found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm under s. 20 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 where he had not himself inflicted the harm nor necessarily directly
intended that any persons would be injured.
Decision/Outcome
The Court found the defendant guilty of GBH under s. 20, with Lord Coleridge asserting:
‘The prisoner must be taken to have intended the natural consequences of that which he did. He acted ‘unlawfully and maliciously’, not that he had any personal malice against the particular individuals injured, but in the sense of doing an unlawful act calculated to injure’ ([58])
Moreover, a charge of ABH does not necessarily require that the accused has personally committed an assault; rather it suffices that they committed an illegal act and it be reasonably foreseeable that this act may cause harm. In interpreting the word ‘inflict’, it should not be considered necessary that the defendant had directly or indirectly applied physical force per se in causing the harm, merely that their actions were the identifiable cause of the injuries suffered by the victims.
Words: 264
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate as a description of the 1881 decision and its immediate legal propositions. However, readers should be aware of subsequent developments that have refined the law in this area.
The interpretation of ‘inflict’ under s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has been substantially developed by later authority. In R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] UKHL 34, the House of Lords confirmed that ‘inflict’ in s. 20 does not require the application of direct physical force and can include psychiatric harm caused indirectly. This broadly supports the approach taken in Martin, but the later cases provide the authoritative modern statement of the law and should be consulted alongside this decision.
The summary’s reference to ‘a charge of ABH’ in the Decision section appears to be a drafting error in the article itself — the charge was GBH under s. 20, not ABH — and this may cause confusion for readers.
The underlying statute, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, remains in force, though law reform in this area has been periodically proposed (most recently by the Law Commission). No amending legislation directly affecting the s. 20 principles discussed here has been enacted as of the date of this note. R v Martin itself continues to be cited as good law on indirect causation and the meaning of ‘inflict’.
