Consent is valid in a range of circumstances, including contact sports (such as boxing or mixed martial arts), as well as body modifications.
In the context of sadomasochism, Lord Mustill in R v Brown (1993) has set the level just below actual bodily harm. R v Wilson (1996), which involved a case where a husband branded his wife's buttocks, upheld that consent can be a valid defense. The act was considered comparable to tattooing, whilst Brown applied specifically to sadomasochism.
In properly regulated sport, there is a legal right to cause incidental injury. This is a criminal law version of the CIVIL LAW principle VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA (LATIN) for consent does not make an [actionable] injury) and the victim consents to run the risk (not the certainty) of injury arising within the rules of the game being played. This does not give sport a license to enact rules permitting acts that are clearly, excessively and maliciously violent.
Limit to the consent
Some injuries are caused deliberately by the opponent making the consent invalid because its not accidental. it must be probed and report established whether it was intended or not.
Please let me know if you need any clarification. I'm always happy to answer your questions.
Aug 9th, 2015
Studypool's Notebank makes it easy to buy and sell old notes, study guides, reviews, etc.