## Facts

- Five adult men participated over many years in private, consensual sadomasochistic sexual activities involving intentional infliction of injury for sexual gratification.
- No participant complained to police; the conduct was discovered independently.
- The acts caused injuries exceeding “transient or trifling” harm, amounting to actual bodily harm and, in some instances, wounding.
- Some sessions occurred in specially equipped rooms; certain activities were videotaped and shared within the group.

## Issues

1. Whether, for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding, the prosecution must prove the absence of the victim’s consent when the injuries are inflicted during consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity.
2. Whether a victim’s consent can provide a defense to liability for actual bodily harm or wounding inflicted for sexual pleasure in private between adults.

## Decision

- The House of Lords, by a 3–2 majority, dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions.
- The court answered the certified question in the negative: the prosecution did not need to prove lack of consent in these circumstances.
- Consent was held not to be a defense to offences involving actual bodily harm or wounding inflicted in consensual sadomasochistic encounters.

## Legal Principles

- Consent does not generally excuse intentional infliction of actual bodily harm or wounding; recognized exceptions are limited to categories justified by public policy (e.g., properly conducted sport, surgery, tattooing, and similar socially accepted activities).
- Consensual sadomasochistic injury for sexual gratification does not fall within the recognized exceptions and remains criminal under the assault and wounding provisions.
- Private, consensual conduct may still be subject to criminal sanction where it involves deliberate violence causing more than minor injury.
- Dissenting views emphasized personal autonomy, the private nature of the conduct, the absence of permanent injury, and concern that moral disapproval should not expand criminal liability without clear legislative direction.

## Conclusion

The decision established that, absent a recognized public-policy exception, consent is not a defense to assault occasioning actual bodily harm or unlawful wounding when injuries are intentionally inflicted for consensual sadomasochistic sexual pleasure, even in private between adults.


R. v. Brown, [1993] 2 All E.R. 75 (H.L.)