Last modified on Wed 17 Feb 2021 06.03 EST
The case of five men jailed for engaging in consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts is one of the few judgments that most law students actually read, and the facts tend to stay with them. The appellants in R v Brown had been convicted of actual bodily harm (ABH) and wounding. A majority ruling in the House of Lords said the fact that the men had consented to the acts, which included inserting fish hooks through the penis and nailing foreskin and scrotum to a board, provided no defence.
The ruling on consent, and the limits of the intrusion of criminal law in people’s sexual relationships, has been criticised by many since as paternalistic and homophobic.