R v brown consent
R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 is a case most law students could tell you the facts of even years after graduating, so remarkable are they. The House of Lords, by a 3–2 majority, decided that the consensual infliction of harm on another person for sexual gratification was not an act the law should permit. The judgment has received criticism in some academic circles because, it is thought, if the facts had been different and involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity it would have been found lawful.
Supporters of this view commonly contrast Brown with R v Wilson[1997] QB 47 which involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity, though a different act from those in Brown, which was found lawful only a few years later by the Court of Appeal. Others criticise it for being too paternalistic – if one can consent to the risk of potentially developing cancer through smoking, branding one’s body with ink to make a tattoo or the risk of injury in martial arts then why should otherwise consensual activity in someone’s bedroom be subject to the criminal law?
Twenty years have passed since Brown was handed down and the principles the House of Lords laid down are still a topic of discussion. Has society moved on from the 90s understanding of sexual needs? Do we think any differently about the activities and those similar to them at issue in Brown? Do we think that private citizens in the safety and comfort of their own home should be allowed to permit injury in the name of sexual gratification?
R v Steven Lock
Earlier this year Steven Lock was found not guilty of causing assault occasioning actual bodily harm during Fifty Shades of Grey-inspired sex activities. The outcome of Steven Lock’s trial is, quite admittedly, a bad example to use if we are asking whether the decision in Brown reflects current societal attitudes, because a not guilty verdict solely answers whether the jury were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a criminal act, and not
Supporters of this view commonly contrast Brown with R v Wilson[1997] QB 47 which involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity, though a different act from those in Brown, which was found lawful only a few years later by the Court of Appeal. Others criticise it for being too paternalistic – if one can consent to the risk of potentially developing cancer through smoking, branding one’s body with ink to make a tattoo or the risk of injury in martial arts then why should otherwise consensual activity in someone’s bedroom be subject to the criminal law?
Twenty years have passed since Brown was handed down and the principles the House of Lords laid down are still a topic of discussion. Has society moved on from the 90s understanding of sexual needs? Do we think any differently about the activities and those similar to them at issue in Brown? Do we think that private citizens in the safety and comfort of their own home should be allowed to permit injury in the name of sexual gratification?
R v Steven Lock
Earlier this year Steven Lock was found not guilty of causing assault occasioning actual bodily harm during Fifty Shades of Grey-inspired sex activities. The outcome of Steven Lock’s trial is, quite admittedly, a bad example to use if we are asking whether the decision in Brown reflects current societal attitudes, because a not guilty verdict solely answers whether the jury were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a criminal act, and not