In R v Slingsby, the defendant penetrated the complainant’s vagina with his fingers, and in the process accidentally cutting her with the signet ring he had on. As a result, they should be brought within the 1861 Act in the interest of public health.
The activities involved a risk of accelerating the spread of HIV, and wounds becoming septic, due to the free flow of blood, inflicting pain and injury beyond the level to which those had consented. Lord Templeman stated “Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.” and “there was no control over the harm that was to be inflicted”. Many would say the R v Brown case was not influenced by prejudice due to the effect it had on society, therefore the results of the case were seen to be in the interest of the public. Herring 2016), as shown by Lord Lowry, who stressed that he would not allow an exception for “sadomasochistic homosexual activity” throughout his judgement, therefore emphasizing that prejudice may have influenced the outcome of the R v Brown case, due to the homosexual nature of the case. Many people suggest that the prejudice within this case was heightened due to the defendant’s sexuality (J. This is due to both defendants being convicted of s.47, however, the heterosexual male’s charges were dropped, but the homosexual male’s charges were not. This case brings up the issue of prejudice that may have occurred in the R v Brown case. These charges were dropped after an appeal, due to the branding being similar to tattooing and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence” and “there shall be no interference by a public authority”, as the actions were lawful and occurred in the privacy of a matrimonial home. Her husband was charged with Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under s.47 OAPA.
However, her skin became infected and she went to her doctor, who reported the matter to the police. In R v Wilson (1997), a wife consented to be branded, by a hot knife, on her buttocks by her husband.
The defendants stated that the ‘victims’ gave their consent, therefore, appealed the charges, however, the court of appeal denied this due to s.20, and the inability to consent to GBH, and on the ground that prosecution was not required to prove consent. Section 20 states that “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm (GBH) upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable”.
In R v Brown (1994), a group of homosexuals, who took part in sadomasochistic activities, were found guilty due to the OAPA c.100 section 20 and section 47, after attempting to use consent as a partial defence. These notions allow a background for debate and discussions about the results of many case laws. There are many cases where there is the potential for prejudice to take place, which can, in turn, affect the decisions that led to the results of the cases. Consent is a complex issue, due to if the actus reus and the mens rea are not found present, consent can be used as a defence for the crime at hand. The issue of consent plays a key part when charging defendants with any sexual offence, or charging someone with section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA), as shown in the R v Brown case. “The case of R v Brown 1 AC 212 demonstrates the potential for prejudice to affect outcomes in criminal law cases.” Discuss with particular reference to the issue of consent and to relevant case law. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp