R v Brown
Consent is not a defence to actual bodily harm or more serious injury inflicted for sexual gratification in sadomasochistic activities.
Facts
A group of men took part in consensual sadomasochistic activities in private, which involved inflicting injuries on each other's genitals and other parts of the body, including with hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and nails. None of the men complained, and no one needed medical treatment. Their activities came to light when the police found videotapes. They were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the convictions, by a majority of three to two. Lord Templeman said that consent is a defence to common assault, but not to actual bodily harm or more serious harm, unless the activity falls within a recognised exception, such as properly conducted sports, surgery, tattooing or rough horseplay. Sadomasochism was not such an exception, because society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn dissented, arguing that the case concerned private morality and was not a matter for the criminal law. The European Court of Human Rights held in Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom (1997) that the convictions did not breach article 8.
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 BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560
- R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- 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.
