R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212

House of Lords

Facts: This case involved a group of men who engaged in consensual sadomasochistic acts over several years. The activities involved various forms of physical harm, including beatings and genital torture, which were carried out with the consent of all parties involved. The acts came to the attention of the police during an unrelated investigation. The participants argued that since all the activities were consensual, no crime had been committed. The issue before the court was whether the participants' consent could serve as a valid defence to charges under s47 and s20 OAPA for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and GBH.

Held: The House of Lords ruled that consent could not serve as a defence to ABH or more serious harm in the context of sadomasochistic activities unless it served a recognized public benefit, such as lawful sports or medical procedures. The court emphasized that the criminal law must protect society from acts of violence, even if consensual, and drew a distinction between lawful acts, such as surgery or tattooing, and acts done purely for the infliction of pain or sexual pleasure.

💡Levelup: This case is highly controversial and represents a significant restriction on the defence of consent in cases involving bodily harm. It established that individuals cannot consent to serious harm unless there is a recognized legal justification, such as medical treatment or sports. The decision in Brown has been debated extensively, particularly concerning individual autonomy and the role of the state in regulating private sexual conduct.