What was decided in Regina v Wilson (1996)?

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and held that genuine consent could be a defence to Section 47 OAPA 1861 on these facts, treating the act like personal adornment done in private.

How is R v Wilson different from R v Brown?

Brown involved group sadomasochistic violence with serious risk and harm. Wilson involved a consensual act between spouses at home with no aggressive intent.

Which law applied to the charge?

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm).

Does marital privacy automatically excuse harm?

No. Privacy does not excuse real harm. Here, the court focused on consent, lack of aggression, and the nature of the act.

What is the key takeaway for students?

Consent may work as a defence for certain bodily harm when the act is consensual, private, and not a form of aggressive violence; but the rule is limited by Brown.

Regina v Wilson (1996)

Consent as a Defence to Assault (S.47 OAPA 1861) — Easy English Classroom Explainer

Court of Appeal (Crim Div) Year: 1996 Citation: [1996] 2 Cr App R 241 Area: Criminal Law Reading Time: ~5 min Public International Law

Quick Summary

A husband branded his initials on his wife’s skin with a heated knife. Both agreed to it and it happened at home. He was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.

The Court of Appeal said consent could work as a defence on these facts and quashed the conviction. The court treated it closer to personal adornment than violent sadomasochistic harm. Consent Defence

Issues

Can valid consent defeat liability for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (S.47 OAPA 1861) on these facts?

Rules

OAPA 1861, Section 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
Consent: Consent can sometimes justify or excuse what would otherwise be ABH, but limits exist (compare R v Brown).
Context matters: Nature of harm, intent (aggressive vs non-aggressive), setting (private), and purpose (adornment vs violence).

Facts — Timeline

Timeline illustration for Regina v Wilson

Marriage: Husband and wife in a consensual relationship.

The act: At the wife’s request/with consent, husband branded his initials on her buttocks using a heated knife.

Charge: Prosecution under S.47 OAPA 1861 for ABH.

Defence: The act was consensual and done in private at home.

Appeal: Matter reached the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)

The branding was consensual, requested/accepted by the wife.
No aggressive intent; done privately like body adornment.
R v Brown is different: there the conduct was violent, risky, and group-based.

Respondent (Prosecution)

Branding caused actual bodily harm; consent should not excuse ABH.
Brown limits consent in harm-causing acts; public policy against violence.

Judgment

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed. The court accepted consent as a defence on these facts.

The court saw this as similar to tattooing/personal adornment done with consent, not violent S&M as in R v Brown.

Ratio Decidendi

Where an act is consensual, private, and lacks aggressive intent, consent may negative ABH liability under S.47 OAPA 1861.
R v Brown is confined to violent, risk-heavy S&M causing serious harm; Wilson’s facts are different.

Why It Matters

This case draws a line between consensual bodily modification and criminal violence. It helps students understand when consent can operate as a defence and how context, intent, and risk shape the analysis.

Key Takeaways

Consent can sometimes defend ABH — but not for violent, risky harm (Brown limit).
Intent and setting matter: non-aggressive, private, adornment-like acts may be viewed differently.
Courts compare facts closely before allowing consent as a defence.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CALM PAD” — Consent, Adornment, Low aggression, Marital privacy — Public policy, ABH, Distinguish Brown.

Ask: Is it like adornment (tattoo/branding) or violence?
Check: Genuine consent and non-aggressive intent?
Compare: If facts look like Brown, consent will likely fail.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether consent defeats ABH liability under S.47 OAPA 1861 on these facts.

Rule: Consent may operate as a defence in limited contexts; Brown restricts consent where violence/serious risk is present.

Application: Here, consensual branding at home, no aggression, akin to personal adornment. Distinguish Brown.

Conclusion: Yes, on these facts; conviction quashed.

Glossary

ABH: Actual Bodily Harm — injuries more than trivial but less than grievous.
OAPA 1861: Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 — UK statute on non-fatal offences.
Ratio decidendi: The legal reason for the decision; the binding part of the case.
Consent: A person’s free and informed agreement to an act affecting them.