# data[].attributes.body
Definition - Intention to cause GBH

GBH? - Really serious harm (DPP v Smith) Wound - Breaks continuity of the skin (Eisenhwower)

Grundy - combination of injuries - GBH

Defence - consensual

Wilson - consensual activity between a husband and wife if their matrimonial home - courts will not interfere if harm is caused.

We are told that they 'eventually started a relationship' and that 'Hayley was hoping for romance'. They are therefore in a stable relationship equivalent to a husband and wife relationship in Wilson.

Some of the injuries may have unforeseen (Slingsby)

Art 8 - right to private life.

Need to allow freedom of choice to make decision in a civilised democratic society without interference from the law even if that decision is regretted. Should be entitled to make decisions about our own bodily integrity (Julie Tolmie)

Prosecution -

Brown - Quote directly from the passage in Brown - cult of violence is not part of a civilised society.

Emmett - risk of permanent injury outweighed consent.

Hayley young student - imbalance of power. She is vulnerable. The reason for the relationship was not love an affection as stated in Wilson requiring marriage, but purely for sex from Nathan's perspective. Allows exploitative nature of the relationship if consent is a defence.

Art - right to Life, art 3 - inhumane and degrading treatment.

Society picks up the tab.

# data[].attributes.body
issue -> is Nathan liable for s18 under the OAPA 1861, and can Hayley consent to her injuries

rule ->

define: 'whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or cause GBH to any person by any means whatsoever with intent to do some GBH or with intent to resist arrest or prevent lawful apprehension or detainer'

GBH, defined in DPP V SMITH , 'really serious harm'

BROWN - consent is not a defence to ABH or wounding, in the context of sadomasochistic activity,

EMMETT - consent is not a valid defence when the harm poses a significant risk

BOLLOM - assess the effect of injuries on the victim

WILSON - consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of their matrimonal home

apply ->

unlawfully and maliciously wound or cause GBH -> vaginal trauma, severely fractured eye socket, extensive bruising and internal injuries

Hayley was found with serious and disabling injuries

intent to do some GBH -> Nathan admitted to causing the injuries deliberately

DEFENCE

- Hayley had previously expressly consented to the activities; Nathan genuinely believed this consent to be genuine consent.

- Consensual activities in a matrimonal home are okay. Hayley and Nathan eventually started a relationship - Hayley was hoping for romance.

- Article 8 - right to private life -> need to allow freedom of choice.

- All activities done by Nathan to Hayley were within the boundaries of the consent.

PROSECUTION

- Hayley was a young student, and Nathan is older and wealthier. Hayley may have felt under duress to agree to Nathan's request (Hayley could be seen as vulnerable)

- BROWN, sadomasochistic is not in the public's interest

- EMMETT, consent is not a valid defence when harm poses a significant risk - Hayley was found with serious and disabling injuries

- Hayley had consented to the previous activities, not those introduced later on that had caused her injuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hayley, a young student, met an older and very wealthy man, Nathan. Nathan pursued Hayley relentlessly and they eventually started a relationship. Hayley was hoping for romance but Nathan’s interest in Hayley was largely sexual. He sought to introduce Hayley to bondage, domination and sado-masochism. Hayley agreed and Nathan gradually introduced more extreme activities into their BDSM. Hayley loved Nathan and acquiesced to these activities. One morning, Hayley was found at the bottom of the stairs in Nathan’s house with serious and disabling injuries. These injuries included vaginal trauma, a severely fractured eye socket, extensive bruising and internal injuries. Nathan was charged with a s18 offence in relation to Hayley’s injuries but claims that they were sustained during ‘rough sex’ and that all activities were within the boundaries of their previously consented to BDSM. Examine Nathan’s liability and critically evaluate the law in this area.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hayley, a young student, met an older and very wealthy man, Nathan. Nathan pursued Hayley relentlessly and they eventually started a relationship. Hayley was hoping for romance but Nathan’s interest in Hayley was largely sexual. He sought to introduce Hayley to bondage, domination and sado-masochism. Hayley agreed and Nathan gradually introduced more extreme activities into their BDSM. Hayley loved Nathan and acquiesced to these activities. One morning, Hayley was found at the bottom of the stairs in Nathan’s house with serious and disabling injuries. These injuries included vaginal trauma, a severely fractured eye socket, extensive bruising and internal injuries. Nathan was charged with a s18 offence in relation to Hayley’s injuries but claims that they were sustained during ‘rough sex’ and that all activities were within the boundaries of their previously consented to BDSM. Examine Nathan’s liability and critically evaluate the law in this area.

# data[].attributes.headline
List of cases involving consent as a defence

# data[].attributes.subject
List of cases involving consent as a defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Women

ACT NOW

Our stories

Press

updates

Our work

store

The Women

ACT NOW

Our stories

Press

updates

Our work

store

We Can’t Consent To This

This is a response to the increasing use of “rough sex” defences to the killing or violent injury of women and girls. There are at least 60 UK women killed and many more injured.

We are extremely concerned by normalised violence against women in sex.

Read the stories of the women, below.

We made incredible steps forward this year: but still need your help to change this

ACT NOW

the women & girls

RT @MumsnetTowers: Last week, non-fatal strangulation official became a criminal offence. Huge congratulations to @Wecantconsentto whi… https://t.co/NntrsJay9M

Jun 19, 2022, 12:10 PM

RT @death2amerikkka: People (men especially) are not willing to admit they are addicted to porn. They're unwilling to reflect on how inh… https://t.co/RANmH8WhUI

Jun 16, 2022, 8:31 PM

The strangulation tweet has now (after several days and multiple reports) been taken down by @TwitterSupport. The a… https://t.co/DoFo2xDkvN

Jun 15, 2022, 12:25 PM

RT @SusannaRustin: When you consider what feminists get banned from @Twitter for, this is enraging, despair-inducing (i am currently r… https://t.co/oFWDJDNzyb

Jun 15, 2022, 8:32 AM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We catalogue the men who claim sex "gone wrong" in the death or injury of a woman or girl. We don't believe that women and girls can consent to their murder, or to terrible injury. There are now 56 UK women and girls killed, and many more injured, in claimed consensual sexual violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
n the first 48 hours after the guilty verdict in the Grace Millane murder case, Fiona Mackenzie received 50 interview requests from the media in the UK, US and New Zealand. In the previous week, as Millane's killer claimed she had died in a "sex game gone wrong", Mackenzie, founder of We Can't Consent to This, which campaigns against the "rough sex" defence, had managed to recruit a voluntary press officer to help with the deluge. Between them, they had juggled BBC Breakfast, ITN, Sky, Channel 5, local TV and radio stations, with Mackenzie also covering her full-time corporate job as an actuary.

"My employers have been very accommodating," she says. "I'm still claiming that this doesn't take up much time - though I've had to give up computer games and reading novels." She's not complaining about the extra work. "For the first half of this year, it was a real struggle to get much interest at all. I think the Grace Millane murder has really changed things."

It wasn't just the murder that has sparked rage - though the details are horrifying.Millane was a British graduate who arrived in New Zealand on a round-the-world trip;she agreed to a date with someone she matched with on the dating app Tinder, then was strangled. Later she was contorted into a suitcase and buried in the woods - though not before her killer had photographed her naked body, watched some porn and gone on another date. Despite these horrifying facts, the trial focused on Millane herself, her sexual history and use of dating apps like Tinder and Whiplr, shifting responsibility away from the murderer and on to the victim.

Newspapers ran headlines such as "Naïve and trusting", "Strangled tourist liked being choked" and "Grace Millane 'encouraged date to choke her during sex and apply more force'". "After the murder, the trial and the way it was reported," says Mackenzie, "I think there's a new understanding of the 'rough sex' defence and a level of anger that wasn't there before."

What Mackenzie calls the "rough sex" defence is the claim in murder cases that the victim consented to violent sex, which led to their death.

Mackenzie launched We Can't Consent to This last December, building the website over Christmas. "To be honest," she says, "I'd gone on holiday on my own and was quite bored." She was soon joined by a handful of volunteers - an old school friend, some fellow Lib Dem campaigners and some women she had met on Mumsnet: "I don't have children but had originally gone on looking for running tips and found an incredible group of feminists."

Natalie Connolly ... her brutal killing in 2016 prompted Mackenzie to launch We Can't Consent to This. Photograph: Staffordshire Police/PA Wire

The trigger for Mackenzie was the case of Natalie Connolly who was brutally killed in December 2016 by John Broadhurst. Broadhurst, her partner of a few months, left the 26-year-old bleeding to death at the bottom of the stairs in the home they shared with her eight-year-old daughter. Connolly suffered multiple blunt-force injuries but Broadhurst claimedit was the result of "rough sex", and was found guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to three years, eight months. Earlier this month, he appealed to have his jail time cut but was unsuccessful. "Some people raged against the verdict but in the main, there seemed to be astonishing levels of acceptance," says Mackenzie. "People somehow believed it, saw it as a weird one-off and thought the victim must be to blame for the riskiness of her behaviour."

For Mackenzie, this stirred difficult memories of a case that took place near Aberdeen, where she was at university studying maths, in 2000. The body of Mandy Barclay, a 32-year-old mother of two, had been found in the local woods. She had died of asphyxia and severe rectal injuries, and her husband, Niall McDonald, was charged with murder. In court, the defence claimed that Barclay had died while practising the kind of sex "that narrow-minded people would call kinky". As a student, Mackenzie followed the details offered up by McDonald (whip, French maid outfit, rooftop sex) and when he was found guilty of the lesser charge of culpable homicide and sentenced to seven years, Mackenzie admits that she believed on some level the victim was somehow culpable.

"With the Broadhurst trial, I felt people were reacting the way I had," she says. "I wondered how many other cases there were and wanted to bring them together to show they weren't isolated incidents."

This wasn't easy. There are no official statistics. Cases aren't collected or categorised under the defence, so Mackenzie has trawled through media reports and legal archives to find them. By the end of that first Christmas holiday, she had 35. She is now aware of 59, although the true figure is probably higher - and doesn't include the vast number of non-fatal alleged assaults in which "rough sex" was argued as a defence. The homicides listed on We Can't Consent to This stretch back to 1972, each one a terrible testament to lessons not learned. "Though pleading consent has no status in English law, juries seem to accept it," says Mackenzie. "We've found that it has resulted in a lesser charge, lighter sentence, or acquittals in 45% of the cases."

Grace Millane ... 'Her murder has really changed things.' Photograph: Auckland City Police /PA Wire

In 1979, to pick one example, 19-year-old Vivien Scott was strangled by 21-year-old DJ John Dudgeon (aka John Taylor) in what he claimed was "slap and tickle". Dudgeon's defence argued that his "one mistake" had been not seeking help immediately. He was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to four years. After serving just 17 months he was out, and attempted to rape and murder a woman in her home. When released a second time, he murdered 32-year-old Susan McNamara.

In another case from 1991, Stuart Williamson received a three-year sentence for the manslaughter of his girlfriend Honor Matthews, 20. Despite his previous convictions for violence, his defence claimed that the "deeply attached" couple had been engaged in "pseudo-masochistic' 'neck compression" aimed at "giving pleasure". After his release, Williamson abused his new partner and killed his mother.

One of the earliest recorded "rough sex" defences took place in 1961 and even this carries overtones of the Grace Millane murder. It took place in Kenya and involved a man called Sharmpal Shikh who claimed his pregnant wife Ajeet had been killed during a "sexual embrace" - she had died from internal injuries to the neck and chest. He had then embarked on an elaborate deception, taking Ajeet's body to the courtyard and stabbing her to make it resemble a robbery. As in the Millane case, the prosecution argued that the behaviour after the killing was the action of a murderer, while the defence countered that it was done in fear, shock and panic. Shikh was believed and the verdict was manslaughter. Rather like Broadhurst, he made an unsuccesful appeal to be acquitted of this.

Seeing parallels and repeats through the decades, it's clear that the "rough sex" defence often sits within a long history of blaming women for their own killings, of looking away from perpetrators to see how victims brought it on themselves. Claiming they actually consented is the logical endpoint.

Hallie Rubenhold, social historian and author of The Five, the untold lives of the women killed by Jack the Ripper, has no doubt there's a pattern here that has been going on for centuries. In her book, which last week won the Baillie Gifford prize, Rubenhold re-examines the lives of the ripper's victims. She finds no credible evidence that three had ever worked as prostitutes, but shows instead how all, born female and working class, lived and died with the cards stacked against them.

The press coverage at the time was often wildly inaccurate, and the entire mythology around "ripperology" since has painted the victims as vulnerable prostitutes, faceless "fallen women" who lived recklessly. After one of the murders, a letter to the Times from a senior civil servant even thanked the "unknown surgical genius" for clearing the East End of its "vicious inhabitants".

"What it came down to, just as it did with Grace Millane, is victim-blaming," says Rubenhold. "It's so deeply ingrained, it's almost in society's DNA. Instead of looking at what happened and why, we're geared to look at the women instead. Just as rape victims are asked about their sexual history, what they were wearing, what they had been drinking, the knee-jerk reaction with Grace Millane was, 'Oh well, she was far away, on Tinder, looking for a hook-up - what kind of woman does that?' The whole point is it doesn't matter. They don't deserve to die."

Why, finally, are we waking up? Mackenzie believes it is partly the rising tide of cases. There has been a 90 per cent increase in the last decade.

More than this, though, is the growing sense among women that this could happen to them - we might all be one "bad date", one "Tinder match" away from dying like this. While the Millane trial was dominated by male voices - the judge, defence, prosecution, former boyfriend - the fury on social media came from women. A typical tweet with the #gracemillane hashtag read: "If I'm ever murdered by someone I'm having sex with, I'd like it on record that I will not have consented to being choked so hard that I DIE."

In the last fortnight, Mackenzie has added an "our stories" section to her site with women sharing their own experiences of assault and "rough sex". Over 100 have contributed. One describes falling in love with an "educated, gentle, kind professional gent" who could only climax with his hands round her neck. Another only managed to free herself from a choke-hold by hitting the man with a lamp: "He was really upset - had thought we were having 'great sex'," she writes.

Change is coming, however. The MP Harriet Harman is confident that her two amendments to the domestic abuse bill - designed to reinforce the fact that consent can be no defence for death - will be seen through in the new year, despite the unlawful suspension of parliament in September and the election causing frustrating delays.

Meanwhile, Mackenzie is chasing the Crown Prosecution Service to properly log and track these cases and enforce Harman's amendments when they are passed. "Changing the law is the easy bit," she says. "The hard part is making sure it works in practice. I also want to keep raising awareness and pushing for policy responses to the appalling normalisation of unbidden violence against women during sex." Next year, she thinks she will formalise her campaign with official charitable status, because relying on a handful of volunteers is becoming tricky. "I'm not a professional campaigner," she says. "I'm learning as I go." How does it feel to know people are now listening? "I'm just really relieved," she replies.

This article was amended on 28 November 2019 to remove an incorrect assertion that the founder of We Can't Consent to This uncovered "two so-called 'rough sex' killings from 1996. A decade on, she has found 20 a year.'" Those figures related to cases involving deaths and injuries to women, not just deaths, in 1996 and 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'There's a new level of anger': the women fighting to end the 'rough sex' defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
n the first 48 hours after the guilty verdict in the Grace Millane murder case, Fiona Mackenzie received 50 interview requests from the media in the UK, US and New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since December 2018, a group of women have attempted to gather stories of use of the "sex games gone wrong" defence in cases where women have died. The result is the website We Can't Consent to This. In the past decade, such killings have risen by 90%. Two-thirds involve strangulation.

The Guardian journalist Anna Moore tells Rachel Humphreys why choking during sex is on the rise. Numerous studies have shown that non-fatal strangulation is one of the highest markers for future homicide, which is why Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most US states have developed preventive legislation to strengthen police, prosecutorial and sentencing policies that surround it. Yet in the UK, it can fall under battery, the mildest assault possible. But led by Harriet Harman, women are campaigning for a change in the law.

And: the Guardian's north of England editor, Helen Pidd,on a particularly bad week for Labour.
If you have found anything in this podcast distressing, you can contact the 24-hour national domestic violence helpline on 0808 2000 247.

The Guardian is editorially independent. And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all. But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.

Support The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The alarming rise of the rough sex defence - podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since December 2018, a group of women have attempted to gather stories of use of the "sex games gone wrong" defence in cases where women have died. The result is the website We Can't Consent to This. In the past decade, such killings have risen by 90%. Two-thirds involve strangulation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he killer of British backpacker Grace Millane has been sentenced to life in prison in New Zealand. Millane's mother, Gillian, told her daughter's killer: "You have taken my daughter's future and robbed us of so many memories that we were going to create."

The horrific murder of Millane, who met her killer (who cannot be named for legal reasons) on a Tinder date, has focused attention on the increasing use of the "sex game gone wrong" defence by men who kill women. It's a defence that can only be described as victim-blaming taken to its most grotesque extreme. Here we have increasing numbers of men blaming women for the fatal violence committed against them, suggesting women can somehow consent to their own deaths (which is legally impossible) while claiming they themselves cannot be held responsible. It's time the use of this defence stopped - for good.

In a twisted reversal, the defence also positions men as hapless victims of women's sexual demands. After all, how can it be his fault if he was just doing what she wanted? It argues men don't know that, for example, strangling, beating and cutting a woman's neck isn't dangerous, and so they cannot be blamed.

But that's nonsense. Millane's killer strangled her for 10 minutes. As the sentencing judge explained, that's not "rough sex". It's violence.

The campaigning group We Can't Consent to This, which tirelessly records the use of this defence, believes "sex game gone wrong" was first used in 1972, when Carole Califono died after her partner Peter Drinkwater injected her with anaesthetics. He argued he was trying to "satisfy her perverted sexual desires", and was sentenced to 12 years for manslaughter.

For 40 years the use of the defence was relatively rare. But since 2010, it has rocketed by 90%, with 28 cases of men claiming a woman died as a result of a "sex game gone wrong". The oldest victim in the past 10 years was 66-year-old Lesley Potter - although this was just one of many excuses used by her killer. The youngest was 16-year-old Hannah Pearson, whose death I can't think about without starting to cry. James Morton killed Hannah hours after they met, saying she "didn't object" when he started to strangle her. He was convicted of manslaughter.

Morton and Drinkwater aren't the only men who have used the defence. Six cases since 2010 led to a manslaughter conviction, including that of Natalie Connolly in 2018. She sustained 40 injuries and was left for dead at the foot of a staircase. Her killer, John Broadhurst, argued it was rough sex, and was sentenced to 44 months.

The defence also re-victimises the women it is used against, and victimises their families.

During the trial of Millane's killer, the use of the defence led to her sexual history being raked over the coals. Tabloid headlines in the UK and around the world joined in with the killer's claims by focusing on her dating past. The New York Post, in a particularly egregious headline, repeated without question her killer's claims of what she asked for in sexual terms in the hours before her death. Other news outlets chose to focus on her membership of a fetish website, and her alleged requests for BDSM practices.

Of course, Millane can't defend herself against his claims and the headlines his words spawned. Dead women don't get a voice. Meanwhile, the people who knew and loved her had to listen to a panoply of voices shift blame from the man who strangled her on to a 22-year-old woman for daring to have a sexual past.

Such victim-blaming leads to another terrifying consequence of the sex game gone wrong defence. If past consent to certain sexual acts can be used against a woman in court then any woman who has ever expressed her sexuality in a certain way can be blamed for the violence committed against her. That is deeply troubling.

Since the Millane verdict there have been renewed calls for the law, in the UK at least, to be changed so men can no longer claim "sex game gone wrong" in court. The Labour MP Harriet Harman has led the charge, calling it the new version of the "nagging and shagging" or "provocation" defence that was banned in 2010. Boris Johnson also backs a ban, according to Grazia magazine.

Such a ban cannot come soon enough. Without it, men will continue to blame their victims for the fatal violence committed against them. Violent men will continue to claim that bruises and cuts are proof of their victim's consent, as opposed to marks of aggression. And women and families will continue to be re-victimised by lurid claims like those directed at Grace. Claims she could not defend herself against because he took away her voice. He took away her life.

* Sian Norris is a freelance journalist writing about feminist and LGBTIQ issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Rough sex' as a defence for murder is grotesque victim-blaming | Sian Norris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he killer of British backpacker Grace Millane has been sentenced to life in prison in New Zealand. Millane's mother, Gillian, told her daughter's killer: "You have taken my daughter's future and robbed us of so many memories that we were going to create."

# data[].attributes.headline
The reverse argument - The Spanner Trust

# data[].attributes.subject
The reverse argument - The Spanner Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SITE MAP
Home page
Newsletters
Documents
Fundraising
Legal
Press
Submissions

Make a donation
Supporters
Trustees
Email us

the Spanner Trust
Norvin House
45-55 Commercial St
London E1 6BD
UK

Press releases

The Spanner Trust always tries to ensure that all information provided is accurate and up-to-date. However, the law can change and is open to interpretation. Before relying upon any statement made by the Spanner Trust you should take your own independent legal advice and the Spanner Trust cannot accept any liability whatsoever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SITE MAP Home page Newsletters Documents Fundraising Legal Press Submissions Make a donation Supporters Trustees Email us the Spanner Trust Norvin House 45-55 Commercial St London E1 6BD UK Press releases The Spanner Trust always tries to ensure that all information provided is accurate and up-to-date.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BDSM: when is sadomasochism an act of domestic violence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The law needs updating – but great care is required when it comes to consent and sadomasochistic sex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tongue splitting: one of the procedures the defendant was convicted for. Shutterstock

The conviction in England of a body modification practitioner for causing grievous bodily harm with intent will have come as a surprise to many practitioners of body modification.

The charges relate to three procedures carried out between 2012 and 2015. The procedures the defendant had performed were a tongue splitting, the removal of an ear, and the removal of a (man's) nipple. All the procedures had been undertaken at the defendant's tattooing and piercing studio and had been performed with the consent of the clients.

There are limits on the harm individuals can consent to. Most people are aware that the law does not sanction euthanasia, yet may be unaware that giving consent to the infliction of lesser harms may also not absolve those causing the injury from criminal charges.

Read more: Assisted-dying laws are progressing in some places - the UK isn't one of them

This is a longstanding legal principle. Where actual bodily harm or above is inflicted upon a person with no good reason, in public or private, the consent of the victim is irrelevant. Whether there is a "good reason" is a matter for the courts to decide.

For example, it has long been accepted that things such as regulated sports and games, reasonable surgery and male circumcision are activities for which lawful consent can be given. If consent is given and the client is of the prescribed age, piercing and tattooing have also been accepted as lawful. But there is no definitive list of those activities to which consent will provide a defence to bodily harm and it is for the courts to decide in any novel circumstance whether there is a good reason.

The ruling

This was an issue in the most recent case. At a preliminary hearing in Wolverhampton, the Crown Court judge had ruled that the consent of the clients to these body modifications did not make the consequent injuries lawful. In other words, the consent of the "victims" did not mean that an offence had not taken place.

The case reached the Court of Appeal as a result of this ruling - heard as the case of R v BM. It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal before trial, but here the court had been asked to decide whether the Crown Court judge was correct to rule that there was no defence of consent.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct and, in these circumstances where serious injuries were caused, the consent of the clients did not mean that offences were not committed. The court considered whether the procedures that had been performed were analogous to tattooing and piercing and decided that the injuries caused by the removal of body parts and tongue splitting were far more serious than those incurred in the course of those lawful activities.

They also felt that there was no "good reason" to allow consent to absolve the appellant of liability. They stressed that the procedures posed a serious risk to health and were surgical in nature - yet they were performed for no good medical reason by an individual who was not medically trained.

This left the defendant with no defence to the charges of grievous bodily harm and when the case was sent back to the Crown Court he entered a guilty plea.

Shutterstock

This all sounds perfectly sensible, yet it ignores the fact that the law allows us to consent to many activities that are inherently foolish or dangerous. For example, we may opt to have a full facial tattoo or to engage in boxing. We may consent to sex with a partner who we know to have HIV and run the risk of infection.

Too much risk?

This reasoning has a long history. It follows the authority of Brown, a case decided in the early 1990s, that any student of the law - and all legal practitioners - will be familiar with. In the Brown case, a number of men engaged in sadomasochistic sexual activities, inflicting consensual injuries upon one another. This case established that there was no good reason for allowing consent to negate liability for the injuries caused. The risks that flowed from the defendants' actions - both to one another and to society as a whole - justified criminalising their activities.

Read more: Where should the law draw the line between consent and culpability in sadomasochism?

In R v BM, the Court of Appeal voiced similar opnions; they could not understand why anyone would wish to have extreme body modification procedures and believed the courts should protect individuals from engaging in this risky behaviour.

The difficulty with this decision is that we are still left with no clear statement of the law in relation to "body mods". The conviction was obviously for the three procedures the defendant had performed. However, the Court of Appeal's judgement was not restricted to tongue splitting and the removal of body parts. The court stated that "body modification" procedures (other than tattooing and piercing) that result in injury are unlawful. This may then include other procedures that have become fairly popular, such as ear pointing (removing part of the ear to give it a pointed appearance), scarification or branding.

Read more: The new tattoo: is body branding legal?

More importantly, the Court of Appeal has not clarified the legal position for procedures that result in less serious harm, such as trans or sub-dermal implants - the insertion of materials under or partially under the skin. These may also be unlawful to perform as they are not strictly analogous to piercing. Hopefully, a sensible prosecution policy will prevent such cases reaching the courts.

As I have suggested previously, we are now in desperate need of clarification of the legal position. The Court of Appeal was seemingly oblivious of the popularity of body modification procedures and is likely unaware that it has left body modification practitioners unsure of whether they are operating within the limits of the law. This now needs to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Body modification - when consent is not a defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conviction in England of a body modification practitioner for causing grievous bodily harm with intent will have come as a surprise to many practitioners of body modification. The charges relate to three procedures carried out between 2012 and 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Non-Fatal Offences against the Person S18 Exam errors Errors Student results To add - % 2022 Coursework Issue concerning severe bruising and concussion Section 20 Issue concerning a fractured eye socket as a result of running away from a gun being pointed at them s20 not