Offences Against the Person. Case note regarding R. v Brown  1 A.C. 212.
Extracts from this essay...
ï»¿Case note regarding R. v Brown  1 A.C. 212. Fatima Gurbanova 1103134 IA120 Audrey Woraker The sado-masochist group which âwillingly and enthusiasticallyâ applied violence upon each other in order to receive a sexual pleasure was held guilty under sections â20 and 47 the Offences against Person Act 1861â. Section 20 of the Offences against person act 1861 states: âWhosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitudeâ, section 47 states: âWhosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm will be liable to be kept in penal servitudeâ. Appellants being unsatisfied with the sentence of the court applied for appeal arguing that the act under which they were sentenced is inappropriate in the given conditions. The appellants were experiencing their sado-masochistic exercises on private property, without involving âchildren, young persons (except for K. who was limited in contact) or animalsâ. Their activities were not intended to be shown to public, and the tapes with their activities were intended only to be shown among the members of the group.
home and his correspondenceâ in their appeals, however Lord Lowry disagreed with this refer saying that the article 8 of the Convention is not a part of the English Law and links to the article 8 (2) of the Convention that states that âno public authority can be said to have interfered with a right by enforcing the provisions of the Act 1861â. In present case âat least actual bodily harmâ was committed; therefore private life is no longer a right in given circumstances. Nonetheless, Lord Mustill in his decision defined the current case as nothing but the âprivate sexual relationsâ which is not a problem of the criminal law. The interesting point that was showed by Lord Mustill is that there are no suitable cases and no appropriate statutes to this case. âThe indictment was made only because no other statute was found which could conceivably be brought to bear upon themâ. Lord Slynn Hadley in his conclusion stated: âadults can consent to acts done in private which do not result serious bodily harmâ and continues saying that therefore the present case cannot be classified as one of the cases that can be sentenced under the Offences Against Person Act 1861.
Overall, the court dismissed the appeal because the majority of the Lords held that the group of sado-masochists was applying violence on each other and their acts were unlawful. However, two other Lords (Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn Hadley) expressed the opposite opinion which was not without certain basis. The acts were committed in private, without any enforcement, all the participants were adults, able to understand what they were enacted. The injuries that the appellants had were not serious enough, and the actions that they were doing did not result any crucial consequence. The Offences against Person Act was established in order to punish the cases that include violence and enforcement, which are absent in the current case. It is seen from the Lordâs judgments that the main base for the Lords who dismissed the appeal was the disgust to the amoral activities enacted by the appellants; therefore the decision can be called a prejudice. Yes, the acts that were done by the appellants were perverted, and hardly can be called normal, but however they did not affect anyone except themselves and they were not against this; on the contrary they showed will to experience all the injuries that they had.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers