Ratio Decidendi
Consent is not a defence to the infliction of actual bodily harm or more serious injury for the purpose of sadomasochistic activities. The House of Lords held (by a 3–2 majority) that public policy required that consent should not be available as a defence to what would otherwise be assaults occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 OAPA 1861, where the purpose of the activity was the satisfaction of sadomasochistic desires.
ਤੱਥ
A group of men willingly and enthusiastically participated in acts of consensual sadomasochism, involving the infliction of injuries upon each other for sexual pleasure. The activities took place in private. No permanent injuries resulted, no medical treatment was sought, and no complaints were made to the police. The participants were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861) and unlawful wounding (s.20 OAPA 1861).
ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ
The House of Lords held (3–2) that consent was not a defence. The majority (Lords Templeman, Jauncey, and Lowry) held that in the absence of good reason, the infliction of actual bodily harm is an unlawful act, and the satisfying of sadomasochistic desires does not constitute such good reason. Lords Mustill and Slynn dissented, arguing that the activities were private, consensual, and caused no lasting harm, and that the criminal law should not intervene.
ਮੁੱਖ ਹਵਾਲੇ
"Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised."
— Lord Templeman
"The question whether the defence of consent should be extended to the infliction of bodily harm for the purpose of sexual gratification is a question of policy."
— Lord Jauncey
ਬਾਅਦ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ
Followed as the authority that consent is not a defence to ABH or above in the context of sadomasochism.
Criticised by many academics and challenged (unsuccessfully) at the European Court of Human Rights in Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK [1997], which held that the prosecution was a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights.