R. v. Brown et al., (1993) 151 N.R. 321 (HL)

• Case Date: March 11, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 151 N.R. 321 (HL)

R. v. Brown (1993), 151 N.R. 321 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. Brown, Lucas Jaggard, Laskey and Carter (appellants)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle,

Lord Lowry, Lord Mustill

and Lord Slynn of Hadley

March 11, 1993.

Summary:

The accused were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (U.K.), 1861. Three of the accused were also charged with wounding contrary to s. 20 of the Act. The incidents which led to the convictions occurred in the course of consensual sado-masochistic homosexual encounters. Following a ruling by the trial judge that consent of the other participants ("the receivers") was not a defence to the charges, the accused pleaded guilty. The accused appealed the trial judge's ruling on consent.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in a decision reported [1992] Q.B. 491, dis­missed the appeals and upheld the convic­tions. The accused appealed. A point of law of general importance was certified for consideration by the House of Lords. The question was: "Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under s. 20 and s. 47 of the 1861, Offences Against the Person Act?"

The House of Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley, dissenting, answered the question in the negative and dismissed the accuseds' appeals, holding that consent was not a defence to the charges. The court, in five separate judgments, reviewed the law of assault and discussed generally the issue of violence and consent and sado-masochis­tic homosexual behaviour in light of, inter alia, the statute and common law, public policy and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Criminal Law - Topic 1346

Causing bodily harm - Defences - Con­sent - The accused had consensual sado-masochistic homosexual encounters - The other participants ("the receivers") did not complain to police and did not suffer permanent injury - The five accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (U.K.), 1861 - Three of the accused were also convicted of wounding contrary to s. 20 - The accused appealed, arguing that consent of "the receivers" was a defence - The House of Lords dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions, holding that consent was not a defence to the charges (i.e., the prosecution did not have to establish a lack of consent on the part of "the receivers" to establish guilt).

Criminal Law - Topic 1346

Causing bodily harm - Defences - Con­sent - The House of Lords, in five sepa­rate judgments, reviewed the law of assault and discussed generally the issue of vio­lence and consent and sado-masochistic homo­sexual behaviour in light of, inter alia, the statute and common law, public policy and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Criminal Law - Topic 1417

Assaults - Assault causing bodily harm - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1346 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1422

Assaults - Defence - Consent - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1346 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Donovan, [1934] 2 K.B. 498 (Crim. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 23, 49, 53, 54, 57, 75-77, 83, 86, 123-130, 137, 158].

J.J.C. (a minor) v. Eisenhower, [1983] 3 All E.R. 230, refd to. [para. 9].

Director of Public Prosecution v. Smith, [1961] A.C. 290, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Mowatt, [1968] 1 Q.B. 421, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Coney (1882), 8 Q.B.D. 534, refd to. [paras. 18, 49-52, 57, 59, 60, 74, 77, 83, 111-113, 127, 130, 157-159, 165].

Attorney General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980), [1981] Q.B. 715, refd to. [paras. 24, 48, 49, 55, 57, 61, 81-87, 130, 132, 137, 159].

Wilson v. Pringle, [1987] Q.B. 237, refd to. [para. 56].

Pallante v. Stadiums Property Ltd. (No. 1), [1976] V.R. 331 (Vict. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 57, 117, 166, 167].

R. v. Savage, [1992] 1 A.C. 699, refd to. [para. 58].

Collins v. Wilcock, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172, refd to. [paras. 61, 102, 154].

R. v. McCoy, [1953] S.A.L.R. 4, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Clarence (1888), 22 Q.B.D. 23, refd to. [para. 98].

Fairclough v. Whipp, [1951] 2 All E.R. 832, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Rice (1803), 3 East 581, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Taverner (1619), 3 Bulstr. 171, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Young (1866), 10 Cox C.C. 371, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Orton (1878), 39 L.T. 293, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Bradshaw (1878), 14 Cox C.C. 83, refd to. [paras. 114, 118].

R. v. Ciccarelli (1989), 54 C.C.C.(3d) 121 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 118, 174].

R. v. Moore (1898), 14 T.L.R. 229, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Conner (1835), 7 C. & P. 438, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Cheeseman (1836), 7 C. & P. 455, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Hopley (1860), 2 F. & F. 202, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Griffin (1869), 11 Cox C.C. 402, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Bruce (1847), 2 Cox C.C. 262, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Jones (1986), 83 Cr. App. R. 375, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Wollaston (1872), 12 Cox C.C. 180, refd to. [para. 172].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 244 [para. 174].

Criminal Justice Act (U.K.), 1988, sect. 39 [para. 4].

European Convention on Human Rights, art. 7 [paras. 40, 41, 63, 90, 137]; art. 8 [paras. 42, 43, 63, 91, 138, 139, 176].

Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, 24225 Vict., c. 100, sect. 20, sect. 47 [para. 1 et seq.].

Sexual Offences Act (U.K.), 1956, sect. 13 [paras. 29, 62].

Sexual Offences Act (U.K.), 1967, sect. 1 [paras. 28, 58, 62, 175].

Authors and Works Noticed:

East's Pleas of the Crown (1803), generally [para. 78]; vol. 1, c. v, paras. 41, 42, pp. 268-270 [para. 114].

Foster's Crown Law (3rd Ed. 1809), gen­erally [para. 78]; p. 230 [para. 115].

Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (8th Ed. 1824), Book 1, c. 15 generally [para. 15]; p. 107 [paras. 49, 108, 154].

Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, gen­erally [para. 86].

Leigh, L.H., Sado-masochism, Consent and the Reform of the Criminal Law (1976), 39 M.L.R. 130, generally [para. 177].

Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1883), generally [para. 74]; arts. 206 [paras. 52, 54, 108, 110, 154]; 207, 208, 209 [para. 154].

United Kingdom, Law Commission's Con­sultation Paper No. 122 (1992), generally [paras. 69, 70, 73].

United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (1957)(Wolfenden Report), generally [paras. 60, 62]; c. 2, para. 13 [para. 27]; para. 105 [paras. 62, 175].

Williams, Glanville, Article, [1962] Crim. L.R. 74, p. 75 [para. 164].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 579-580 [para. 106]; 582-589 [para. 82].

Wolfenden Report - see United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution.

Counsel:

L. Kershen, Q.C., and P. Hendy, for Brown;

Baroness Mallalieu, Q.C., and A. Fulford, for Lucas and Jaggard;

A. Worrall, Q.C., and G. Grenfell, for Laskey;

R. Thwaites, Q.C., and J. Lurie, for Carter;

N. Purnell, Q.C., and D. Spens, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard in London, England, on December 1, 2, 3 and 7, 1992, before Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tulli­chettle, Lord Lowry, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley, of the House of Lords. The decision of the court was delivered on March 11, 1993, including the following opinions:

Lord Templeman - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle - see para­graphs 45 to 64;

Lord Lowry - see paragraphs 65 to 92;

Lord Mustill, dissenting - see paragraphs 93 to 145;

Lord Slynn of Hadley, dissenting - see paragraphs 146 to 181.