Written by Michael Thompson, Founder of the Falsely Accused Network
We talk a lot about the harm of false allegations — emotional damage, reputational ruin, families torn apart. But we rarely ask a deeper legal question:
Why aren’t false allegations prosecuted as assault?
Under English law, the offence of assault doesn’t require physical contact. It requires the intentional or reckless act of causing someone to fear the immediate application of unlawful force. That principle, confirmed by the House of Lords in R v Ireland [1997], should give us pause — because it opens the door to holding false accusers to account under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
---
The Case Law: R v Ireland
In R v Ireland, the defendant was convicted under section 47 of the 1861 Act for making a series of silent phone calls that left his victims psychologically distressed.
His lawyers argued that silence couldn't amount to assault, and that psychiatric injury wasn't "bodily harm". The House of Lords rejected both arguments.
> “A thing said is also a thing done. There is no reason why something said should be incapable of causing an apprehension of immediate personal violence.”
— Lord Steyn, R v Ireland
Lord Steyn also made clear that the 1861 Act is an “always speaking” statute. In other words, the meaning of “bodily harm” evolves with modern medical understanding. Recognisable psychiatric illnesses — anxiety, depression, PTSD — now fall squarely within it.
If that’s true for silent phone calls, why not false allegations?
---
False Allegations Cause Real Fear of State Violence
Let’s be blunt. A false allegation of domestic abuse or sexual violence can result in:
Arrest by armed officers at your home
Overnight detention
Loss of access to your children
Forced relocation
Reputational destruction before you’ve said a word in your defence
These outcomes involve unlawful force when the allegation is knowingly false. They are carried out not by the accuser’s hand, but by the state acting on misinformation.
That doesn’t make the accuser less responsible — it makes them more so.
In these cases, the accused is left fearing immediate and severe consequences — a key element in the legal test for assault.
---
Psychological Harm Is Recognised Bodily Harm
Psychiatric injury caused by false allegations isn’t speculative — it’s documented. Many falsely accused people experience:
Clinical depression
Anxiety disorders
Complex PTSD
Suicidal ideation
This isn’t a matter of “hurt feelings”. It’s real harm that affects the brain in measurable ways. Under Ireland, and before that Chan-Fook, such injury is legally sufficient to constitute actual bodily harm.
So if a false allegation causes this kind of harm, why wouldn’t it be treated under section 47?
---
“A Thing Said Is Also a Thing Done”
We live in a time where words carry real-world consequences. Courts have recognised that speech can constitute assault when it causes apprehension of unlawful violence.
A man in a dark alley whispering, “Come with me or I’ll stab you,” is guilty of assault — even if he never touches his victim.
Why should someone who says, “He raped me,” knowing it’s untrue, be treated any differently?
---
Time for a Legal Reassessment
The law already has the tools. The question is whether the will exists to use them.
False allegations — especially when made maliciously, with the intention of triggering police action or destroying someone’s reputation — are not just morally wrong. They meet the legal definition of assault.
And if the criminal justice system is serious about fairness, it’s time that reality was reflected in prosecutions.
---
Michael Thompson
Founder, Falsely Accused Network
📧 support@falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
🌐 www.falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
📞 0204 538 8788
England and Wales Only