Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law

Page name
In my view, it should be "non-fatal non-sexual" rather than just "non-fatal" for clarity. Certain sexual offences were characterised as offences against the person by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and this is still the case with the Visiting Forces Act 1952. James500 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I though that would be pushing the name a bit far. I do not think that the average reader would expect expect sexual offences to be covered here, and it's noted prominently in the lead. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have struck my remarks. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideally we'd have Sexual offences in English law, but it hasn't been written yet. Indeed the system needs impvroing, but that can't really happen unless matched by content creation, and there's only so much I/we can do at once. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Sexual offences in the United Kingdom. I had it in mind to split that into its three components sooner or later. James500 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question
The article says that "R v Burstow extended "bodily harm" to include psychological trauma if it formed a recognised serious mental condition" (my emphasis). In R v Chan Fook, in 1993, the Court of Appeal said that bodily harm included "psychiatric injury". In R v Burstow, the Court of Appeal said they were bound by that previous decision, and Lord Steyn agreed that they were. In what sense has the meaning of the term been "extended" by R v Burstow? James500 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Chan Fook was charged with a S47 offence, whereas Burstow was charged with S20. If that is correct, "extended" seems reasonable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)