Below is an account of the investigation and legal
battles occasioned by what was termed 'Operation Spanner'.
In December 1990 in the UK, 16 gay men were given
prison sentences of up to four and a half years or fined for engaging
in consensual SM activity. This followed a police investigation
called Operation Spanner prompted by the chance finding of a videotape
of SM activities.
The convictions have now been upheld by both
the Court of Appeal and the Law Lords in the UK and the European
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Despite what you may have read in the newspapers,
for the most part, the men were convicted of the standard offence
of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Their defence, that they
had all consented to the activities, was denied.
SM is not itself 'illegal'.
However, if the police discover you have engaged
in SM activities which have caused injury, you and your partner
could be prosecuted for assault. top of page
The
Case
During a raid in 1987 the police seized a videotape which showed
a number of identifiable men engaging in heavy SM activities including
beatings, genital abrasions and lacerations. The police claim that
they immediately started a murder investigation because they were
convinced that the men were being killed. This investigation is
rumoured to have cost £4 million. Dozens of gay men were interviewed.
The police learned that none of the men in the video had been murdered,
or even suffered injuries which required medical attention. However
the police may well have felt that they had to bring some prosecutions
to justify their expensive investigation. top
of page
The
Verdicts
In December 1990, 16 of the men pleaded guilty on legal advice to
a number of offences and were sent to jail, given suspended jail
sentences or fined. The men's defence was based on the fact that
they had all consented to the activities. But Judge Rant, in a complex
legal argument, decided that the activities in which they engaged
fell outside the exceptions to the law of assault.
A number of the defendants appealed against
their convictions and sentences. Their convictions were upheld though
the sentences were reduced as it was felt they might well have been
unaware that their activities were illegal. However the Appeal Court
noted that this would not apply to similar cases in the future.
The case then went to the House of 'Lords. The Law Lords heard the
case in 1992 and delivered their judgement in January 1993. They
upheld the convictions by a majority of three to two. top
of page
The
Evidence
The evidence against the men comprised the videotape and their own
statements. When they were questioned by the police, the men were
so confident that their activities were lawful (because they had
consented to them) that they freely admitted to taking part in the
activities on the video. Without these statements and the videotape,
the police would have had no evidence to present against the men
and would have found it impossible to bring any prosecutions. top
of page
The
Law Of Assault
In law, you cannot, as a rule, consent to an assault. There are
exceptions. For example, you can consent to a medical practitioner
touching and possibly injuring your body; you can consent to an
opponent hitting or injuring you in sports such as rugby or boxing;
you can consent to tattoos or piercings if they are for ornamental
purposes. You can also use consent as a defence against a charge
of what is called Common Assault. This is an assault which causes
no significant injury. top of page
The
Judgement
The Law Lords ruled that SM activity provides no exception to the
rule that consent is no defence to charges of assault occasioning
actual bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm. These are defined
as activities which cause injuries of a lasting nature. Bruises
or cuts could be considered lasting injuries by a court, even if
they heal up completely and that takes a short period of time. Grievous
bodily harm covers more serious injury and maiming. Judge Rant introduced
some new terms to define what he considered to be lawful and unlawful
bodily harm. Judge Rant decreed that bodily harm applied or received
during sexual activities was lawful if the pain it caused was "just
momentary" and "so slight that it can be discounted". His judgement
applies also to bodily marks such as those produced by beatings
or bondage. These too, according to him, must not be of a lasting
nature. In essence, Judge Rant decided that any injury, pain or
mark that was more than trifling and momentary was illegal and would
be considered an assault under the law. top of
page
|