Talk:Bodily harm
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The transwiki has been deleted. See here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Bodily_harm James500 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Origin/Etymology[edit]
Could someone confirm whether the 1803 Act is the original coinage of this expression (or just of the expression grievous bodily harm) or not. Thank you. James500 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Psychiatric injury[edit]
I have merged the section on psychiatric injury from the article Grievous bodily harm into this article after expanding and redrafting it. I did not think it was desirable to have multiple co-tracts on the subject in that article and in the article assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The following material formerly appeared in the latter article. I will leave it here for the moment just in case I have missed something:James500 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-physical injury[edit]
Non-physical or psychiatric injury can be considered actual bodily harm, although there must be medical evidence of the injury. ...
R v Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 689 did not accept hysteria or other very strong emotions as an injury when the defendant locked up a suspected thief who became very upset and tried to escape. This was followed by the Court of Appeal in R v Constanza (1997) 2 Cr. App. R. 492, and the House of Lords which confirmed the principle in R v Burstow, R v Ireland (1997) AC 147. During a three month period, Ireland, harassed three women by making repeated silent or heavy breathing telephone calls to them at night. This caused his victims to suffer psychiatric illness. ...
More[edit]
I have moved the following material here from Talk:Grievous bodily harm:
Non-physical injury[edit]
Changed it from suspected shoplifter to the flatmate, since that's what the case write up says R v. Chan Fook, don't know if that case should mention that the victim claims there was actual physical assult (the defense argued against that) and that his face was bruised and battered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.20.93 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The intention of Parliament[edit]
It appears to me that the following passage is an attempt to paraphrase the quotes from Lord Steyn and Hobhouse LJ. that are now in the article. I do not think that what this passage says neccessarily follows from what Lord Steyn said. I am not sure that Lord Steyn's opinion is equal to a virtual certainty, or that he is making this inference from the language of the Act (rather than from the date on which it was passed or some other source). So I have replaced what I can with sourced material and cut the rest. James500 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The original legislative intent was almost certainly restricted to physical injury because Parliament required "bodily" (i.e. harm to the skin, flesh and bones of the victim) rather than "mental" or "emotional" harm. After all, psychiatry was in its infancy in 1861.