比较了伤害施加在拳击和施虐受虐狂，一直被视为堕落的运动方面。只有在短暂的损害，没有“现实的伤害风险”可能发生的情况下，同意在1999的情况下，随后澄清埃米特的同意辩护。不同意被视为一种防御ABH，情况阐明在上议院的棕色，这是规定，伤害的可见证据导致无法接受，同意作为防御措施，虽然它在1996 Wilson [ 8 ]的情况下可接受的防御。一个难题存在于这个特定的实例就同意辩护因为疼痛勉强造成的在这组练习施虐受虐狂不需要医疗干预和不被认为已经造成足够的伤害需要刑法的介入。 一种看法认为，规则是在一个程序的压迫来解释可以解释为法官和陪审团是由个人的看法产生不利影响的判决公开影响的原因，其中的一个例子可能是一个知觉对R V布朗[ 9 ]后来被告歧视，对拉斯基的呼吁欧洲人权公约，否认一个人有权决定什么可以做，以自己的身体。当CPS最初决定起诉，唯一的证据是在警方拥有视频和每个人的陈述，他们都承认参与。初始时为起诉法官咆哮应用身体伤害的性质，或身体上的记号，在性活动是合法的如果疼痛引起的这样一个短暂的性质为“打折”。任何更持久的东西都会被归类为攻击。
Comparison has been made between the infliction of harm in respect of the sport of boxing and sado-masochism which has been perceived as depravity. The defence of consent is only considered in the case of ephemeral damage where no “realistic risk of harm” might occur, subsequently clarified in 1999 during the case of Emmett. Neither can consent be considered as a defence for ABH, a situation clarified in the House of Lords in Brown whereby it was ruled that, where visible evidence of harm resulted, consent could not be accepted as a defence, although it was an acceptable defence in the case of Wilson in 1996. A conundrum exists in this particular instance with respect to the defence of consent because the pain consensually inflicted amongst this group practising sado-masochism needed no medical intervention and was not considered to have resulted in sufficient harm as to warrant the intervention of criminal law.
A perception that rules are interpreted in terms of a procedural oppression could offer an explanation as to the reason for judges and juries being overtly influenced by personal opinion which adversely affect a verdict, an example of which could be a perception of discrimination against the defendants in R v Brown and later, of Laskey’s appeal to the ECHR, effectively denying an individual the right to decide what may be done to their own bodies. When CPS originally decided to prosecute, the only evidence was the video in possession of the police and each of the men’s statements, all of whom had admitted taking part. During the initial case for the prosecution Judge Rant applied the nature of bodily harm, or bodily marks, to be lawful during sexual activity if the pain caused was of such a transient nature as to “be discounted”. Anything more enduring would be classed as assault.
在紧急情况下作业或者论文无法完成！需要代写请第一时间联系我们论文代写机构噢！我们一定给予最好的服务和学术支持！if you need writing service ！了解论文代写价格