A loophole? Where!?

It is possible to intend harm on a claimant, outside of trespass to the person. This is covered by a tort established in Wilkinson v Downton.

Wilkinson v Downton - The claimant suffered from shock when the defendant told her that her husband had been injured in an accident, breaking his legs. In actual fact he hadn't been hurt at all, but the claimant suffered both physical and psychological damage including vomiting. There was no direct interference so trespass could not be used, yet there was intentional harm. It was held that an act/statement of the defendant, which sets out in order to cause physical harm against the claimant, and achieves in doing so, is a tort.

After this case there was only one English one to follow:

Janvier v Sweeny - In the war the defendant told the claimant that if she did not steal her employer's letters, he would tell the authorities (falsely) that the claimant's fiance was a spy. This caused the claimant psychiatric trauma, and defendant was found guilty as he deliberately caused harm.

It was thought that the rule was then abolished recently in 2004 with the case of Wainwright v Home Office. However the House of Lords accepted the rule still existed when the case went to appeal.

Wainwright v Home Office - A mother and son (who suffered cerebal palsy and arrested development) visited a prison in order to visit the other son. The son was suspected of drug smuggling, so they were both strip-searched, including a search of anuses, penises and fannys. The Court of Appeal doubted the rule still existed, but the House of Lords said it did.

The rule still has a role to play, maybe even more so in modern times, with the use of video-recorders becoming more popular, and cyberbullying.