R v Wilson
Consensual branding of a wife by her husband at her request was not an offence, because it was akin to tattooing.
Facts
Mrs Wilson asked her husband to tattoo his initials on her buttocks. He did not know how to tattoo, so he branded his initials on her buttocks with a hot knife instead. Her doctor reported the burns to the police, and Mr Wilson was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Russell LJ said that Mrs Wilson had not only consented to the branding but had instigated it, and that it was no more dangerous than tattooing, which is a recognised exception. Consensual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of the matrimonial home is not a proper matter for criminal investigation or prosecution. The court distinguished R v Brown, saying that there was no aggressive intent in Mr Wilson's actions.
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 Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
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.
