R v Wilson [1997] QB 47

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D) branded his initials onto his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife at her request. She later sought medical attention for the burns, which led to D being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 OAPA. The prosecution argued that the branding was an unlawful act of bodily harm, while D and his wife contended that the act was consensual and done in private, similar to a tattoo.

Held: The Court of Appeal quashed D’s conviction, ruling that branding in this context was akin to tattooing, which is lawful when consensual. The court emphasized that consensual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of their home was not a matter for criminal law.

Key Quote: Russell LJ: “Consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of the matrimonial home, is not, in our judgment, a proper matter for criminal investigation.”

💡Levelup: This case contrasts with Brown, reflecting a more lenient approach to consent in non-fatal offences. It underscores the importance of personal autonomy and privacy in consensual acts, particularly within the marital context.