![judicial consent 1994 online judicial consent 1994 online](http://petloced.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/3/4/133407689/240595854_orig.jpg)
Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or, for entire works, to Wikisource. Please help improve the article by presenting facts as a neutrally worded summary with appropriate citations.
![judicial consent 1994 online judicial consent 1994 online](https://www.oocities.org/hollywood/bungalow/7881/wirth.jpg)
This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. The appellants argued against conviction under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as they had in all instances consented to the acts they engaged in ( volenti non fit injuria), that as with tattooing and customary-site body piercings their consent would be directly analogous to the lawful exceptions laid out by three cornerstone (and other) widely-spaced precedent cases. The question approved and certified as in the public interest on appeal was whether the prosecution had to prove (in all similar cases) a lack of consent on the recipient's part.
#Judicial consent 1994 online trial#
Each appellant (having had legal advice) pleaded guilty to the offence when the trial judge ruled that consent of the victim was no defence. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation. The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. The case is colloquially known as the Spanner case, named after Operation Spanner, the investigation which led to it. The court found no direct precedent for sadomasochism among the senior courts (those of binding precedent) so applied the reasoning of three indirectly analogous binding cases and others. The acts involved included the nailing of a part of the body to a board, but not so as to necessitate, strictly, medical treatment.
![judicial consent 1994 online judicial consent 1994 online](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3xca-QT1m5c/XH5wtediocI/AAAAAAAAE0M/KK1RhnQIL-MsQapTNKd4A72dS8oAQBq7QCLcBGAs/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525%2525J-DILLA.jpg)
The key issue facing the Court was whether consent was a valid defence to assault in these circumstances, to which the Court answered in the negative. They were convicted of a count of unlawful and malicious wounding and a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (contrary to sections 20 and 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861). R v Brown UKHL 19, 1 AC 212 is a House of Lords judgment which re-affirmed the conviction of five men for their involvement in consensual unusually severe sadomasochistic sexual acts over a 10-year period.