R v Brown [1994]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: A group of gay men participated in consensual sado-masochistic sexual activities involving physical harm.

• Charges: They were convicted under s.20 and s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) for causing actual bodily harm (ABH) and grievous bodily harm (GBH).

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

• Rationale:

◦ Lord Templemen: Consent is not a valid defence to charges of ABH or GBH, particularly where the violence involved is severe. Exceptions to this principle are rare and should not be extended to consensual activities involving physical harm.

◦ Lord Mustill: Argued that there should be no criminal offence if the victim consents to ABH unless a significant reason exists for intervention. Emphasised personal autonomy and privacy, suggesting that such consensual activities should not be criminalised without a compelling reason.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Legal Principle: The case established that consent is not a defence to charges involving significant physical harm under s.20 and s.47, except in specific, justifiable circumstances.

• Criticism: The case has faced criticism for perceived homophobia and questioned the necessity of criminalising consensual acts between adults, especially when no medical intervention was required. The ruling raises issues about the extent to which the law should intervene in private, consensual activities and the balance between public morality and individual autonomy.