Consent to Non-Fatal Harm
The general rule
R v Brown 1994 – A group of gay men were involved in sado-masochistic sexual activities
and were convicted under S20 7 S47 OAPA. The issue is whether the defence of consent can
be extended to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sado-masochistic encounters.
The appeal was dismissed as it was held that D was guilty of the conviction and that consent
is not a defence under S20 and S47. Consent is a defence under assault or battery, but this is
not extended to further sections of OAPA, where a wound or bodily harm is involved.
- V can consent to D causing injury amounting to less than ABH in any circumstances.
- V cannot consent to ABH or above unless an exemption applies.
- V cannot consent to D causing their death.
Unacceptable conduct where the defence is not available to ABH and above
Street fighting and some forms of prize fighting:
AG’s ref No.6 1980 – The question put forward to the Attorney General was whether under
S36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, two people commencing a physical fight, in public, but
out of sporting context, can use the defence of consent. It was held that violence in a public
place amounted to a breach of the peace and was unlawful. Also, violence when in anger
was intended and likely to cause bodily harm and is unlawful regardless of whether consent
was given.
Sado-masochism
R v Brown 1994
R v Emmet 1999 – The degree of actual and potential harm was such and also the degree of
unpredictability as to injury was such as to make it a proper cause for the criminal law to
intervene.
Female circumcision
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 - a person is guilty of an FGM offence if they excise,
infibulate, or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of a girl's or woman's labia majora,
labia minora or clitoris.
Body modification
R v BM 2018 – The defence of consent does not apply to ABH in the form of body
modification. A tattooist carried out body modifications for a client by removing one ear,
one nipple and the division of their tongue. D was convicted with wounding with intent to
do grievous bodily harm contrary to S18 OAPA.
Assisted suicide
Pretty v UK 2002 – D suffered from motor neurone disease. She wrote to the DPP requesting
that her husband be immune from prosecution, she he assist her in taking her own life. It
The general rule
R v Brown 1994 – A group of gay men were involved in sado-masochistic sexual activities
and were convicted under S20 7 S47 OAPA. The issue is whether the defence of consent can
be extended to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sado-masochistic encounters.
The appeal was dismissed as it was held that D was guilty of the conviction and that consent
is not a defence under S20 and S47. Consent is a defence under assault or battery, but this is
not extended to further sections of OAPA, where a wound or bodily harm is involved.
- V can consent to D causing injury amounting to less than ABH in any circumstances.
- V cannot consent to ABH or above unless an exemption applies.
- V cannot consent to D causing their death.
Unacceptable conduct where the defence is not available to ABH and above
Street fighting and some forms of prize fighting:
AG’s ref No.6 1980 – The question put forward to the Attorney General was whether under
S36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, two people commencing a physical fight, in public, but
out of sporting context, can use the defence of consent. It was held that violence in a public
place amounted to a breach of the peace and was unlawful. Also, violence when in anger
was intended and likely to cause bodily harm and is unlawful regardless of whether consent
was given.
Sado-masochism
R v Brown 1994
R v Emmet 1999 – The degree of actual and potential harm was such and also the degree of
unpredictability as to injury was such as to make it a proper cause for the criminal law to
intervene.
Female circumcision
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 - a person is guilty of an FGM offence if they excise,
infibulate, or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of a girl's or woman's labia majora,
labia minora or clitoris.
Body modification
R v BM 2018 – The defence of consent does not apply to ABH in the form of body
modification. A tattooist carried out body modifications for a client by removing one ear,
one nipple and the division of their tongue. D was convicted with wounding with intent to
do grievous bodily harm contrary to S18 OAPA.
Assisted suicide
Pretty v UK 2002 – D suffered from motor neurone disease. She wrote to the DPP requesting
that her husband be immune from prosecution, she he assist her in taking her own life. It
