This case clarified the limits of consent as a defence under sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It established that the consent of the victim is not a defence where the infliction of bodily harm occurs for sexual gratification (sado-masochistic activity) and where the harm is more than transient or trifling. The decision emphasises that public policy considerations can override private consent in cases of actual bodily harm. 

• The appellants were a group of adult male sado-masochists who voluntarily engaged in acts of violence on each other for sexual pleasure.

• The acts included wounding and causing actual bodily harm to genital and other areas of the body.

• All acts were private, consensual, and confined to like-minded adults. No permanent injuries or public disturbance occurred.

• The appellants were charged with offences under s20 (unlawful wounding or infliction of grievous bodily harm) and s47 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

• At trial, the judge ruled that consent of the victim was not a defence, leading to convictions. Appeals to the Court of Appeal were dismissed.

Whether, in cases of consensual sado-masochistic sexual activity resulting in actual bodily harm, the prosecution must prove lack of consent to secure a conviction under s20 or s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. 

• The House of Lords upheld the convictions.

• Consent is not a defence to charges under sections 20 or 47 where actual bodily harm is inflicted, even if the victim voluntarily participates.

• Public policy considerations require that such acts cannot be justified solely on the basis of sexual gratification.

• The decision distinguishes lawful activities (e.g., sports, surgery, tattooing) from harmful private sexual acts for which the law will intervene.

1. Consent negates liability only for minor or trivial bodily harm (common assault) but not for actual bodily harm or wounding under s20 or s47.

2. Public interest can justify overriding consent where acts cause more than transient harm.

3. Private sexual gratification does not constitute a lawful excuse for inflicting bodily harm.

4. The ruling confirms that sado-masochistic acts resulting in bodily harm are criminal, even if consensual, due to the overarching public policy to protect bodily integrity.