Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19, [1994] 1 AC 212 [1] is a House of Lords judgment which re-affirmed the conviction of five men for their involvement in consensual unusually severe sadomasochistic sexual acts over a 10-year period.
R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited an accused from raising self-induced intoxication as a defence to criminal charges.
In R v Brown, the House of Lords upheld their judgement, finding that consent was not a defence to their actions in these circumstances. The applicants believed that a violation of Article 8 had occurred because the activities were consensual, conducted in a private setting, and none of the participants required medical attention.
A resulting House of Lords judgement, R v Brown, ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for actual bodily harm in Britain. [4] The case sparked a national conversation about the limits of consent and the role of government in sexual encounters between consenting adults. [5]
In R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 when considering whether injuries inflicted during sadomasochistic sex with the consent of all parties was legal, he said: "Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing.
R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 (Dissenting) White v Jones [1995] AC 207; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 (Dissenting) Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344; The Nagasaki Spirit [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 323; Attorney General's Reference No.3 (1994) [1998] AC 245; R v ...
R v R [1991] UKHL 12 is a House of Lords judgement in which R was convicted of attempting to rape his wife but appealed his conviction on the grounds of a marital rape exemption whereby R claimed a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife as his wife had given consent to sexual intercourse through the contract of marriage which she could not withdraw.
R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark [2] decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment.