▁and ▁hum ili ated , ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁been ▁threatened ▁with ▁further ▁violence , ▁and ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁very ▁fright ened . ▁There ▁was ▁no ▁medical ▁or ▁psych iat ric ▁evidence ▁to ▁support ▁the ▁alleg ation . ▁There ▁was ▁no ▁evidence ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁in ▁a ▁state ▁of ▁shock ▁at ▁any ▁time ▁prior ▁to ▁receiving ▁the ▁inj uries ▁which ▁he ▁suffered ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁falling ▁from ▁the ▁window ." ▁ ▁Hob house ▁L J . ▁said : ▁ ▁He ▁went ▁on ▁to ▁say : ▁ ▁He ▁said ▁that ▁jur ies ▁" should ▁not ▁be ▁directed ▁that ▁an ▁assault ▁which ▁causes ▁a ▁h yst er ical ▁and ▁nerv ous ▁condition ▁is ▁an ▁assault ▁occasion ing ▁actual ▁bod ily ▁harm ". ▁ ▁This ▁was ▁followed ▁by ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁in ▁R ▁v ▁Const anza , ▁and ▁the ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁which ▁confirmed ▁the ▁principle ▁in ▁R ▁v ▁Bur st ow , ▁R ▁v ▁Ireland . ▁Ireland ▁caused ▁three ▁women ▁to ▁suffer ▁psych iat ric ▁ill ness . ▁Bur st ow ' s ▁victim ▁was ▁fear ful ▁of ▁personal ▁violence ▁and ▁was ▁diagn osed ▁as ▁suffering ▁from ▁a ▁severe ▁de press ive ▁ill ness . ▁The ▁best ▁medical ▁practice ▁today ▁accepts ▁a ▁link ▁between ▁the ▁body ▁and ▁psych iat ric ▁injury , ▁so ▁the ▁words ▁" b od ily ▁harm " ▁in ▁sections ▁ 2 0 ▁and ▁ 4 7 ▁were ▁capable ▁of ▁covering ▁recogn ised ▁psych iat ric ▁ill ness es , ▁such ▁as ▁an ▁anx iety ▁dis orders ▁or