Editing BDSM (section)

=== United Kingdom ===
In British law, consent is an absolute defense to common assault, but not necessarily to actual bodily harm, where courts may decide that consent is not valid, as occurred in the case of ''[[R v Brown]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/sexualoffencesreview.asp|title=Spanner Trust submission to the Home Office Review Board on Sexual Offences|publisher=The Spanner Trust|access-date=27 January 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071214235525/http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/sexualoffencesreview.asp| archive-date= 14 December 2007 | url-status=live}}</ref> Accordingly, consensual activities in the U.K. may not constitute "assault occasioning actual or grievous bodily harm" in law. The [[Spanner Trust]] states that this is defined as activities which have caused injury "of a lasting nature" but that only a slight duration or injury might be considered "lasting" in law.<ref>{{cite web|title=The History of the Spanner Case|url=http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp|publisher=[[Spanner Trust]]|access-date=8 February 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110517122950/http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp|archive-date=17 May 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> The decision contrasts with the later case of ''R v Wilson'' in which conviction for non-sexual consensual branding within a marriage was overturned, the appeal court ruling that ''R v Brown'' was not an authority in all cases of consensual injury and criticizing the decision to prosecute.<ref>R v Wilson (1996). Text of ruling online at: {{cite web|title=R v Wilson (1996) 2 Cr App Rep 241|url=http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/consent-Wilson.php|publisher=LawTeacher.com|access-date=8 February 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101228001313/http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/consent-Wilson.php|archive-date=28 December 2010|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

Following [[Operation Spanner]], the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled in January 1999 in ''[[Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom]]'' that no violation of [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]] occurred because the amount of physical or psychological harm that the law allows between any two people, even consenting adults, is to be determined by the [[Jurisdiction (area)|jurisdiction]] the individuals live in, as it is the State's responsibility to balance the concerns of [[public health]] and well-being with the amount of control a State should be allowed to exercise over its citizens. In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007, the British Government cited the Spanner case as justification for criminalizing images of consensual acts, as part of its proposed criminalization of possession of "[[extreme pornography]]".<ref>House of Commons: ''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 Criminal Justice And Immigration Bill] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170706232658/https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 |date=6 July 2017 }}''</ref> Another contrasting case was that of Stephen Lock in 2013, who was cleared of actual bodily harm on the grounds that the woman consented. In this case, the act was deemed to be sexual.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gardener-cleared-of-assault-after-fifty-shades-of-greyinspired-sadomasochistic-sex-session-8461714.html | location=London | work=The Independent | first=Ben | last=Kendall | title=Gardener cleared of assault after Fifty Shades of Grey-inspired sadomasochistic sex session | date=22 January 2013 | access-date=24 August 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925160100/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gardener-cleared-of-assault-after-fifty-shades-of-greyinspired-sadomasochistic-sex-session-8461714.html | archive-date=25 September 2015 | url-status=live }}</ref>