IN THE SUPREME COURT

BETWEEN:
Regina
Appellant
-andWolowitz
Respondent
______________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE [APPELLANT]
_______________________________
Introduction
In accordance with the precedence established in R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75, the
decision in the Court of Appeal should be overturned; thus the decision in the Crown
Court should be reinstated. Therefore, Wolowitz should be convicted for offences
contrary to sections 47 and 20 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
First Ground of Appeal

In accordance with Lord Templemans speech in R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER

75, Mr Wolowitz cannot, as a matter of law, consent to the infliction of such
bodily harm as was caused by the Respondent.

Submissions:
1. Per Swift Js definition of bodily harm in R v Donovan [1934] 2 K.B. 498, is
where any hurt or injury is calculated to interfere with health or comfort of
an individual. Sadomasochistic practices are concerned with inflicting bodily
harm on individuals and the purpose of the law is to serve as protection for
those individuals.
2. Lord Templemans speech in R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75, does not place an
outright ban on the consent to violence. Consent is possible in circumstances
where the injury is a foreseeable risk of a lawful activity; however,
Sadomasochism is concerned with cruelty and therefore, consent is immaterial
in situations where there is unpredictable danger.
Violence of sadomasochists involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and
degradation of victims; therefore, the law should restrain practices which are
considered dangerous.
3. Decision in R v Wilson (1996) 2 Cr App Rep 241 should be overturned. There
is a logical difference between Wilsons initial branding and the art of

tattooing, which requires a licence and is done under controlled sterile

environments.
Second Ground of Appeal

In our democratic society it is necessary to criminalise sadomasochistic practices

for the protection of health or morals as permitted by Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.

Submissions:
1. The protection of health for individuals in a democratic society as per Article 8
(2) ECHR, sex is no excuse for violence therefore violence may permit the
state to derogate from the right to a private and family life as per R v Brown
(Anthony Joseph) [1993] 2 W.L.R 556. Not every sexual activity that is
carried out in private necessarily falls within the scope of Article 8; therefore
prosecuting sadists does not breach private or family life: Laskey, Jaggard and
Brown v United Kingdom (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 39.
2. The protection of morals for individuals in a democratic society as per Article
8 (2) ECHR, sadomasochistic practices can corrupt societys view of a healthy
relationship and normalise abuse in a relationship or/and in general day to day
life. Additionally, sadomasochistic relationships are likely to be based from
uncertain consent and lack of understanding of the correct and safe way to
practice

Senior Counsel: Shanice Begum

Junior Counsel: Maggie Chong
23rd February 2016