Talk:Bodily harm

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message
--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
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
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
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
I have moved the following material here from Talk:Grievous bodily harm:

Non-physical injury
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
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.