Spanner progress, UK.

In February this year the Law Commission published a consultation paper
on "Consent and offences against the person". This is a response
to the legal chaos caused by the Spanner judgement.

Although the commission clings to the idea that the state has the
right to dictate what we can do with our own bodies, they do
recognise problems caused by the Spanner judgement and propose
positive changes to the law.

After Spanner you can only consent to an injury that is "transient
and trifling" (which means that the effects of a spanking might be
above the line). The Commission propose changing this to allow
consent as a defence to anything except "serious injury".

The Law Commission has made it clear that they want to hear from all
interested parties, not just lawyers. Lord Justice Brooke, Chairman
of the Commission said, "We are anxious to hear from people and
organisations for whom the present law is creating difficulties."
Usually, the Law Commission doesn't get much response to their
papers. A flood of submissions may help firm up their tentative
proposals for reform.

The Three Choices
-----------------
The Commission identifies three possible approaches to the new law:-

1) That a person's body is their own, and that the law has no place
in dictating what can be done with it.

This approach is acknowledged but rejected by the Commission. "... it
is not in the public interest that people should cause each other harm
for no good reason." The commission cites the law on drugs as an example
of an area where society frames laws which limit freedom of persons
to do as they wish with their bodies.

2) That the law should set a limit to the injury to which a person may
consent at "transient and trifling" (i.e. Where it is after the
Spanner judgement), but that certain special categories should be exempt
from the law.

The special categories proposed by the Commission are: ritual
circumcision, ear-piercing, tattooing and (perhaps) religious
flagellation/mortification and dangerous exhibitions. Regarding
the possibility of SM being a special category it comments, "It
is difficult to see why the presence of a sexual motive should alter
the law."

3) That the Law should set a limit to the injury, to which a
person may consent to, at up to (but not including) "serious
injury", and that there should then be no special categories except
sports and games which are recognised and organised.

This law would be the same whether the acts concerned took place
in private or public. Serious injury would then be a level
determined by jury, and the first case tried on it would then set
a precedent.

--

The Consultation Paper costs 5.95 pounds and can be obtained from
HMSO.

The commission needs to be told that SM is not violence per se, but
is a sexual activity, philosophical activity, meditation, etc.
The third choice above would probably legalise most SM acts.

Submissions need to reach the Commission before the 30th June 94.
Send them to Ms. C Haskell, Law Commission, Conquest House
37-38 John Street, off Theobolds Road, London WC1 2BQ.
NB. Submissions may be given in confidence, by marking so
on your submission. Otherwise the commission may quote you (and
your name) in their final report.

Martin

--
                  ...Kiss the razors edge...

Martin Prime,				JANET:	martin@inf.rl.ac.uk
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,		UUCP:	..!mcsun!uknet!rlinf!martin
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, England OX11 0QX.TEL: +44 235 446555