R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D), a body modification artist, performed extreme procedures on clients, including tongue-splitting, ear removal, and nipple removal. D claimed all procedures were consensual and likened body modification to tattooing or piercing. D was charged under s.18 OAPA for wounding with intent, with the prosecution arguing that the clients’ consent did not absolve D of liability for serious bodily harm.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction, ruling that extreme body modification did not fall under exceptions for consensual harm like those recognized in Wilson. The court found the procedures to be akin to surgery, requiring proper medical qualifications and regulation.

Key Quote: LJ Sharp: “There is no good reason... why body modification should be placed in a special category of exemption from the principles which ordinarily apply to assault occasioning actual bodily harm or wounding.”

💡Levelup: This case clarified that consent to extreme body modification does not exempt it from legal scrutiny, establishing the need for appropriate medical oversight and regulation in such procedures.