It is difficult to reconcile the decision in BROWN AND OTHERS with that in WILSON.
In BROWN AND OTHERS, the H/L held that consent could not be a defence to sadomasochist behaviour between consenting homosexual adults. In WILSON the C/A held that consent could be a defence where a husband branded his wife's buttocks with his initials. It seems odd that the defence was allowed in WILSON, despite D's need for medical treatment, and not in BROWN AND OTHERS where no medical attention was needed. Some argue there is one law for homosexuals and another for heterosexuals.
There is also a problem that no-one can consent to their own death. The law allows someone to commit suicide, but where they are not capable, someone who helps could be guilty of assisting suicide: DPP v PRETTY
Arguably, Parliament should legislate on the availability of the defence of consent. However, it could be argued that the judges are in a better position to proceed on a case-by-case basis, rather than Parliament attempting to lay down general principles.

	Created by Lucy Nove over 7 years ago

A2 Law (Offences Against the Person) Slide Set on Evaluations and Reforms, created by Lucy Nove on 18/03/2017.