• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Offences Against the Person. Case note regarding R. v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Case note regarding R. v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212. Fatima Gurbanova 1103134 IA120 Audrey Woraker The sado-masochist group which âwillingly and enthusiasticallyâ[1] 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[2]. 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[3], 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[4]. 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[5]. 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. ...read more.

Middle

home and his correspondenceâ[16] 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[17]. In present case âat least actual bodily harmâ[18] 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[19] 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[20]. Lord Slynn Hadley in his conclusion stated: âadults can consent to acts done in private which do not result serious bodily harmâ[21] 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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Jurisprudence section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Jurisprudence essays

  1. An Introduction to the Law of Intellectual Property

    To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public.

  2. Unlawful Act Manslaughter

    But in this section we are concerned more about the bottom point - is the killing sufficiently blameworthy to attract liability for manslaughter, for a lesser offence or indeed no liability at all? It is sensible to regard manslaughter not as a single offence but as separate offences.

  1. Essay on how judges decide cases

    sorts of 'secondary' rules: rules of change, adjudication and recognition.11 Unlike primary rules, the first two of these secondary rules do not generally impose duties but usually confer power. The rule of recognition, however, does seem to impose duties, especially on judges.12 Hart refers to a rule of recognition as

  2. Perhaps the most pertinent issue regarding the justification of torture is the ongoing and ...

    If there is undoubted evidence of an imminent attack, does a nation not have a right to act in its interests of self-defence in protecting its citizens? If countries and individual security officials such as members of the army or police force are allowed to kill in self-defence or to

  1. Detention violates European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Guardian Unlimited's Charles Shoebridge states "The danger is, however, that the threat of arrest, investigation and prosecution, as well as a possible seven-year sentence, will deter those who currently feel free to comment upon religious affairs from even taking the risk."II According to Matthew Tempest, political correspondent of Guardian Unlimited,

  2. Libertarian Welfare Rights. An Inquiry into the Coherence of Some Common Libertarian Commitments

    Nozick allows that consent can justify non-minimal states. He insists only that minimal states do not require free consent for legitimacy. For, he believes the minimal states only enforce pre-existing rights. At the same time, Nozick might maintain that other, more robust, states would require free consent.

  1. Case note on - Percy v Director of Pubic Prosecution [1995] 3 All ER ...

    In addition there is a twin requirement of balancing individual rights and the rights of the general public. Both extremes need to be met, tolerated and accommodated. Each of these issues can be taken in more detail. Breach of the Peace As previously mentioned the District Judge took Lord Denning's

  2. Protecting Human Rights in the UK - Case notes: Bellinger v Bellinger (Lord Chancellor ...

    As stated in Goodwin "A test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition."5 Mrs Bellinger successfully claimed that s11 (c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act was incompatible with 2 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work