R v BM [2018]

R v BM [2018]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: D, a tattooist, removed a customer’s ear, nipple, and part of their tongue to create a reptilian effect.

• Charges: Convicted of causing grievous bodily harm (GBH).

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The conviction for GBH was upheld.

• Rationale: The court held that consent was not a valid defence in this case.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Test Applied: The court applied the test of whether the act produced a social benefit and whether it would be unreasonable to criminalise the conduct.

• Legal Basis: The decision reflects that consent is not a defence for acts that do not offer social benefit and where the harm is deemed excessive, thus overriding personal autonomy in favour of public policy considerations.