R v BM
Body modification procedures such as removing an ear were not covered by the consent exception for tattooing and piercing.
Facts
BM was a tattooist and body piercer who carried out body modification procedures. With his customers' consent, he removed one customer's ear, removed another's nipple, and divided another's tongue to create a forked appearance like a snake's tongue. He was not a qualified doctor and used no anaesthetic. He was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The judge ruled that the customers' consent was no defence, and he pleaded guilty.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's ruling. Lord Burnett CJ said that the procedures were not covered by the exception for tattooing and body piercing, which involved much less serious injuries, and that they were in effect surgical procedures carried out without medical qualifications or justification. Following R v Brown, consent is not a defence to grievous bodily harm unless the activity falls within a recognised exception, and the courts should not create a new exception for body modification, which would be a matter for Parliament.
Related cases on non-fatal offences against the person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Michael) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1571
- JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
- Logdon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1976] Crim LR 121
- R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
- R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App R 492
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
