The appellant was convicted of an offence under s.47. He had, with his wife’s consent, branded his initials onto her buttocks with a hot knife.
Held: Consensual activity within a marriage was capable of being a matter for criminal prosecution. The appeal succeeded: ‘There was no aggressive intent on the part of the appellant. On the contrary, far from wishing to cause injury to his wife, the appellant’s desire was to assist her in what she regarded as the acquisition of a desirable piece of personal adornment, perhaps in this day and age no less understandable than the piercing of nostrils or even tongues for the purposes of inserting decorative jewellery. In our judgment, Brown is not authority for the proposition that consent is no defence to a charge under section 47 of the Act of 1861, in all circumstances where actual bodily harm is deliberately inflicted. It is to be observed that the question certified for their Lordships in Brown related only to a ‘sadomasochistic encounter’. However, their Lordships recognised in the course of their speeches, that it is necessary that there must be exceptions to what is no more than a general proposition. The speeches of Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey, and the dissenting speech of Lord Slynn all refer to tattooing as being an activity which, if carried out with the consent of an adult, does not involve an offence under s. 47, albeit that actual bodily harm is deliberately inflicted. For our part we cannot detect any logical difference between what the appellant did and what he might have done in the way of tattooing. The latter activity apparently requires no state authorisation, and the appellant was as free to engage in it as anyone else. We do not think we are entitled to assume that the method adopted by the appellant and his wife was any more dangerous or painful than tattooing. There was simply no evidence to assist the court on this aspect of the matter.’
Citations:
Times 05-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 Crim App R 241
Statutes:
Offences against the Person Act 1861 47
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Meachen, Regina v CACD 20-Oct-2006
The appellant appealed his conviction for anal rape. He said the incident had been consensual. He had administered a date rape drug. He said again that this had been consensual. The prosecution alleged that the injuries left were inconsistent with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.88329
