My Law Tutor

R v Ireland – 1998

April 03, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Facts of R v Ireland – 1998

In 1998, a case that redefined harassment and its legal consequences reached the House of Lords in England and Wales: R v Ireland. The defendant, Robert Ireland, became embroiled in a legal battle due to his actions towards three women. Over a period of three months, Ireland engaged in a course of conduct that caused significant distress – he repeatedly made silent phone calls to the women, primarily late at night. These calls, devoid of any verbal interaction, instilled fear and anxiety in the victims. This behavior ultimately led to Ireland being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.


The legal battle in R v Ireland centered on two critical issues that had not been definitively addressed before:

  1. Silence as Assault: Traditionally, assault was understood as an act that caused apprehension of immediate violence. Could silence, in the context of repeated phone calls, create such apprehension and constitute an assault?
  2. Psychiatric Injury as Bodily Harm: The concept of “actual bodily harm” in ABH typically referred to physical injuries. Did the mental distress and anxiety caused by the silent calls qualify as “actual bodily harm” under the Act?


The House of Lords delivered a landmark judgment, upholding Ireland’s conviction for ABH. The court took a progressive approach, recognizing the evolving nature of assault and the potential for psychological harm. Their decision hinged on two key points:

  • The repeated nature of the silent calls, coupled with the late hour, created a reasonable fear of imminent violence in the minds of the victims. The court acknowledged that silence, in this specific context, could be a deliberate tactic intended to cause apprehension and intimidation.
  • The court broadened the definition of “actual bodily harm” to encompass medically recognized psychiatric illness resulting from an assault. The mental distress and anxiety caused by Ireland’s actions were deemed sufficient to qualify as “actual bodily harm” for the purposes of ABH.

Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning of the Court)

The court’s reasoning in R v Ireland focused on the potential psychological impact of the defendant’s actions. The repeated silent calls in the dead of night were not considered mere pranks. Instead, the court recognized them as a deliberate course of conduct designed to cause fear and intimidation. This apprehension of imminent violence, even without spoken threats, was deemed sufficient to constitute an assault. Additionally, the court acknowledged the growing understanding of mental health and the real-world consequences of psychological harm. By broadening the definition of “actual bodily harm” to include medically recognized psychiatric illness, the court ensured that such harm would not be disregarded within the legal framework.


R v Ireland holds immense significance for English criminal law in several ways. It established a precedent for recognizing silence as a potential element of assault, particularly in situations where the context and course of conduct create a reasonable fear of violence. Furthermore, the case expanded the scope of “actual bodily harm” beyond physical injuries, offering legal recognition and recourse for victims who suffer psychological trauma due to an assault. This broader understanding has significant implications for stalking and harassment cases, allowing for prosecution based on the mental harm inflicted.


R v Ireland stands as a pivotal case, expanding the legal understanding of assault and “actual bodily harm” in English law. It acknowledges the psychological impact of harassment and stalking behavior, paving the way for holding perpetrators accountable for the mental harm they inflict. This case serves as a crucial reference point for prosecuting harassment and ensuring the protection of victims’ mental well-being. While the case leaves room for interpretation in specific situations, it represents a significant step forward in recognizing and addressing the psychological consequences of criminal acts.

Why Choose Us:

Students turn to our law coursework help service for expert guidance and support in navigating coursework assignments. Whether they need assistance with research, writing, or editing, our team of experienced professionals provides personalized assistance that empowers students to achieve academic success and realize their full potential.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'R v Ireland – 1998' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). R v Ireland – 1998. Retrieved from
"R v Ireland – 1998." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"R v Ireland – 1998." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . R v Ireland – 1998. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. R v Ireland – 1998 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=R v Ireland – 1998 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

D’Eyncourt v Gregory

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to D’Eyncourt v Gregory: The 1868 case of D’Eyncourt v Gregory, decided by the English Court of Equity, stands as a landmark decision concerning the distinction between fixtures and chattels in land ownership. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of a “shifting clause” in a will, specifically whether affixed items like statues and […]

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962

UK Law . Last modified: July 22, 2024

Introduction to Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha: Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962) dives into the murky waters of breach of contract remedies, introducing the groundbreaking concept of innominate terms. This case explores the question: when a party breaches a contractual term, does it automatically sink the entire […]

Raffles v Wichelhaus – 1864

UK Law . Last modified: January 18, 2024

Introduction to Raffles v Wichelhaus – 1864 Raffles v Wichelhaus – 1864 is a legal enigma that unfolded in a bygone era, holding profound significance. Transporting ourselves to 1864, we embark on a journey through legal intricacies that shaped this case. The historical backdrop and legal framework of the time become vital, offering a lens […]

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

UK Law . Last modified: March 7, 2024

Introduction to Woodward v Mayor of Hastings: Woodward v Mayor of Hastings is a notable case in local government law, which sheds light on the scope of municipal liability and the duty of care owed by local authorities to citizens. This case study delves into the intricacies of the dispute between Woodward and the Mayor […]

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks – 1996

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks – 1996: Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks 1996 is a significant case that delves into the legal intricacies surrounding contractual obligations and negligence. This case centers on a dispute between the plaintiff, Crown River Cruises, and the defendant, Kimbolton Fireworks, concerning alleged breaches of contract and […]

Lowery v Walker – 1911

UK Law . Last modified: March 19, 2024

Introduction to Lowery v Walker: Lowery v Walker (1911) is a seminal case that delves into the complexities of property law, particularly in relation to the principles of adverse possession. This case study aims to dissect the intricacies of Lowery v Walker, exploring its background, legal issues, court proceedings, judgment, impact, controversies, and significance within […]

go to top