Consent to actual bodily harm for sexual gratification (Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s.71)
Elliot and Sam, both adults, are in a relationship and live together in Manchester. During consensual sexual activity, and at Sam's request, Elliot strikes Sam repeatedly with a leather belt for the sexual gratification of both of them. Sam is left with heavy bruising and welts that amount to actual bodily harm. Sam does not support a prosecution, but Elliot is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Elliot says Sam fully consented.
Which of the following best describes whether Sam's consent prevents Elliot being guilty of the s.47 offence?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: It is not a defence, because consent to actual bodily harm or worse inflicted for sexual gratification is not a defence to a s.47 offence.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Under s.71 Domestic Abuse Act 2021, consent to actual bodily harm, wounding or GBH inflicted for sexual gratification is no defence to ss.18, 20 or 47 OAPA 1861 (save the STI exception).
Consent to actual bodily harm for sexual gratification (Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s.71)
Consent can sometimes prevent an application of force from being an unlawful assault, but not here. Section 71 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 applies to offences under ss.18, 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It provides that it is not a defence that V consented to the infliction of serious harm for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. 'Serious harm' is defined to include actual bodily harm within the meaning of s.47, as well as wounding and grievous bodily harm. Under s.71(5) it does not matter whether the gratification was for D, V or someone else. The only exception, in s.71(4), concerns infection with a sexually transmitted infection where V consented knowing of it, which does not apply. The bruising and welts are actual bodily harm, so Sam's consent is no defence to the s.47 charge. The section reflects the common law position in R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212.
Why A is wrong: Adult consent does not prevent liability where actual bodily harm or worse is inflicted for sexual gratification.
Why B is wrong: 'Serious harm' in s.71 expressly includes actual bodily harm within s.47.
Why D is wrong: Section 71 removes consent as a defence regardless of whether Elliot intended the harm.
Why E is wrong: Section 71(5) provides that it does not matter whose sexual gratification was sought.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861; R v Savage)
Which of the following best describes Hannah's liability under s.47?
Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
Which of the following best states the mens rea the prosecution must prove under s.20?
Wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest (s.18 OAPA 1861)
Which of the following best describes Jordan's liability under s.18?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.