-Criminal - Consent -Seminar 8 - FT205 by Claire Turner

Article by Sam Pegg

claire43 — 2021-11-09 13:38:13 UTC

Article on S&M Activity by Sam Pegg

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:22:56 UTC

R v Brown

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:24:36 UTC

Podcast

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:25:19 UTC

List of cases involving consent as a defence

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:26:44 UTC

The reverse argument - The Spanner Trust

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:29:17 UTC

Case study - Grace Millane

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:30:01 UTC

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:31:03 UTC

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

claire43 — 2022-11-15 09:31:41 UTC

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2022-11-15 14:34:47 UTC

R v Wilson

claire43 — 2022-11-15 14:40:12 UTC

Law

claire43 — 2023-11-16 14:36:17 UTC

Articles

claire43 — 2023-11-16 14:37:10 UTC

Real life examples

claire43 — 2023-11-16 14:39:49 UTC

European Convention Human Rights (ECHR)

claire43 — 2025-11-19 10:55:15 UTC

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.

claire43 — 2025-11-19 10:55:41 UTC

2025-11-19 11:55:45 UTC

s18 gbh - Unlawful and malicious inflication of grievous bodily harm or wounding

actus reas we know he did it because he said so as he stated "he caused the wounds to Hayley"

mens rea he also states he deliberately inflicted said wounds onto her

he will likely defend himself by claiming these acts are consensual

however according to brown and emmet they were not married so the sadomasochistic acts were not lawful and also according to emmet the victim could be argued to be venerable as she's a young and he is an older wealthy businessman which he could leveraged both his financial and social position to coarse her into these sickening acts. these two cases and the application of them would show that Nathan is likely to be convicted of s18 GBH.

the area of law around consent is inconsonant and downright harmful at worse. i argue this because the two main cases we use around this area of law R v Wilson and R v Brown. contradict one another as the only out lying difference between the cases are one of the case involve a married couple while the other a group of homosexual men. not allowing the case in Wilson could prove harmful to married people as domestic violence could be defended legally through Wilson as consensual and it would be a valid legal defense. i believe that brown and emmet should take precedent over Wilson the case be forgotten.

s18

claire43 — 2025-11-19 11:55:48 UTC

Definition - Intention to cause gbh

GBH? - Really serious harm (DPP v Smith)

Wound? piercing 2 layers of skin/breaks the continuity (Eisenhower)

Intention - yes.

Defence - consent

Consensual sexual act. Wilson - husband and wife in matrimonial home - the court won't interfere.

Akin to a marital relationship? - 'started a relationship' 'Hayley hoping for romance' 'Hayley loved Nathan'

She consented to the harm. Happened in their home.

Some of the injuries could have been accidental as part of their BDSM activity (Slingsby)

ECHR - Right to private life (Article 8)

Freedom as part of democratic society to make decisions even if you subsequently regret those decision. The criminal law should not prosecute for an act resulting form your expression of your freedom of choice (Julia Tolmie)

Prosecution

Brown - if abh is intended and/or caused consent is irrelevant. 236

Emmett - vulnerable victim - Financially and socially - young student and he is an older business man who is able to coerce her into agreeing to his requests. Risk of permanent injury that outweigh consent.

Art /Art 2

Cost of treating injuries - medical profession - time and money. (Julia Tolmie)