The decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Brown has been well documented as one which has serious repercussions for the civil liberties of homosexuals within the United Kingdom, its most notorious ramification being that one cannot consent to the infliction of injury upon oneself in the course of homosexual sadomasochistic activities. The case continues to arouse strong passions in the gay press and amongst civil liberties groups, and the recent announcement that the European Court of Human Rights is to hear the appeal of the men involved has confirmed that this particular “hard case” will continue to exercise the minds of legal practitioners, academics and others for some years to come.
In addition to its implications for sadomasochistic activities, Brown indirectly raises a myriad of other issues. One of these is the question of to what extent the courts should intervene in the case of injuries inflicted during the course of sporting activities. Although the Crown Courts (where the most serious criminal cases of England and Wales are heard) have recently shown an increased willingness to intervene in cases where the injuries inflicted are particularly severe, my preliminary research suggests that the prosecuting authorities are reluctant to bring such cases to court, although they almost certainly would do so if an incident which gave rise to similar injuries had occurred in a nonsporting context.