Highlights how NFOs stem
from the intentional touching
Faulker v Talbot [1981] 1 WLR of another: “any intentional
1528 Lord Lane 1534 touching of another person
without the consent of that
person”
R v Brown [1994] AC 212 You can’t consent to harm
[19993] 2 WLR 556 greater than battery: consent
is no defence to ABH or GBH
R v Wilson [1956] Crim LR 573 Inconsistent application of Court ruled that consensual
Brown sexual activity between a
husband and wife was private,
despite H branding initials on
W’s bum with a hot knife;
distinguished from Brown on
the basis that this wasn’t done
for sexual gratification and it
was an act of tattooing. Court
also said there was no
aggressive intent here – but
there wasn’t in Brown
R v Emmett (1999) The Times Inconsistent application of Held that consensual
15 October Brown sadomasochistic acts between
engaged couples eg
asphyxiation/burning tits can’t
be consented to: D was
convicted of ABH and this was
distinguished from Wilson in
that here there was a greater
risk of injury
R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of D had unprotected sex with
1103 [2004] 3 WLR 213 Brown two women knowing he had
HIV, they got it, CoA said that
sex – particularly when
unprotected – carries with it a
risk the victims can be said to
have consented to BUT you
can’t consent to GBH (jars
against Brown), D charged with
S20 GBH
R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of Held that 3 Vs who had
706 [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 14 Brown unprotected sex w/D couldn’t
consent to the harm; consent
could only happen if they
consented to the unprotected
sex whilst informed of D’s HIV
status
R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of D convicted under S18 OAPA
889 [2014] Crim. L.R. 686 Brown 1861 of transmitting herpes
from the intentional touching
Faulker v Talbot [1981] 1 WLR of another: “any intentional
1528 Lord Lane 1534 touching of another person
without the consent of that
person”
R v Brown [1994] AC 212 You can’t consent to harm
[19993] 2 WLR 556 greater than battery: consent
is no defence to ABH or GBH
R v Wilson [1956] Crim LR 573 Inconsistent application of Court ruled that consensual
Brown sexual activity between a
husband and wife was private,
despite H branding initials on
W’s bum with a hot knife;
distinguished from Brown on
the basis that this wasn’t done
for sexual gratification and it
was an act of tattooing. Court
also said there was no
aggressive intent here – but
there wasn’t in Brown
R v Emmett (1999) The Times Inconsistent application of Held that consensual
15 October Brown sadomasochistic acts between
engaged couples eg
asphyxiation/burning tits can’t
be consented to: D was
convicted of ABH and this was
distinguished from Wilson in
that here there was a greater
risk of injury
R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of D had unprotected sex with
1103 [2004] 3 WLR 213 Brown two women knowing he had
HIV, they got it, CoA said that
sex – particularly when
unprotected – carries with it a
risk the victims can be said to
have consented to BUT you
can’t consent to GBH (jars
against Brown), D charged with
S20 GBH
R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of Held that 3 Vs who had
706 [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 14 Brown unprotected sex w/D couldn’t
consent to the harm; consent
could only happen if they
consented to the unprotected
sex whilst informed of D’s HIV
status
R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim Inconsistent application of D convicted under S18 OAPA
889 [2014] Crim. L.R. 686 Brown 1861 of transmitting herpes
