BM, R v

BM, R v

Consent is not a defence to charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the context of body modification procedures performed by a non-medical practitioner, as such acts do not fall within any recognised exception to the general rule and involve serious harm for no medical reason.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: BM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Preparatory Hearing Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent as a Defence, Grievous Bodily Harm, Body Modification, Public Policy Exceptions, Medical Procedures and Regulation
Criminal Law Consent as a Defence Grievous Bodily Harm Body Modification Public Policy Exceptions Medical Procedures and Regulation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

BM

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Preparatory Hearing Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent is a defence to charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the context of body modification procedures performed by a non-medical practitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

Consent is not a defence to charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the context of body modification procedures performed by a non-medical practitioner, as such acts do not fall within any recognised exception to the general rule and involve serious harm for no medical reason.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed