R v Brown (1993) & R v Wilson (1997)

1. R v Brown (1993) & R v Wilson (1997) Mr Brown and appellants belonged to a group or sadomasochistic homosexuals. Who over a period of 10 years, willingly and enthusiastically participated in acts of violence against each other for sexual pleasure. All these acts were done privately and all consented for. No complaints were made. They were discovered by accident, and all members were charged (including ABH and wounding) They were all convicted and all appeals dismissed. It was decided that it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause harm for no good reason. Irrespective of it occurring in private or public. It is an offence if actual bodily harm is intended to be caused, therefore consent was not a valid defence. Alan Wilson had branded his initials onto his wife’s buttocks using a hot blade. She regarded the branding as ‘desirable personal adornment , it was discovered that she had originally asked for the branding to be on her breasts. However, Wilson persuaded her to have the branding on her buttocks instead. The matter only came to light when a Doctor reported the incident to the police. In court Wilson was convicted of ABH. However, Mr Wilson appealed, he was successful and the conviction quashed. Problem: In this case the judge ruled that their were distinguishing factors that meant these cases were significantly different to have different outcomes. Distinguishing factors: In the case of R v Brown there was intent to cause harm on each other, judges ruled that they were acts of cruelty and degraded the victims. In R v Wilson the judge ruled the Mrs Wilson consented and instigated to the acts of Mr Wilson. There was no aggressive intent, Mr Wilson tried to talk her out of it.