In Brown's case , the House of Lords were split on the issue of whether the consent of victims could be defence to a charge of assault. The 3:2 majority based their judgment on the general rule that a victim cannot consent to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm or more, unless the defendant's actions were within lawfully recognised exceptions. This decision has been widely criticised for placing limits on individual autonomy.

Brown's case involved a group of men who engaged in consensual, sado-masochistic activities over a period of ten years. The activity came to the attention of the police because it had been videotaped and subsequently distributed. Five of the men were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding. The accused appealed to the House of Lords.

Lord Templeman in the majority held the view that a general rule exists in relation to consent: namely, that consent ordinarily precludes liability in cases of assault. Examples of 'lawfully recognised exceptions' to this general rule include properly conducted sports such as boxing, medical and dental treatment, tattooing and bona fide religious mortifications. In

He argues that even if these activities 'should' be suppressed, it would be by way of self-imposed moral standards or by community values - not by the criminal law.

The appeals were dismissed on the grounds that sado-masochistic activities should not be an exception to the general rule by reason of policy and public interest.

It is difficult to draw out a general principle from Brown's case that can be applied to those problem areas involving the consensual causing of harm. The legal reasoning for dismissing the appellant's appeals against conviction was based upon the 'consideration of policy and public interest'. Lord Templeman did not expand on this concept, but it may be assumed to involve factors such as the degree of violence endured by the victims and moral repugnance, which relates to the social and cultural acceptance of sado-masochistic activities. The confusion concerning the concepts of public policy indicates that there is no guidance for purposes of future cases. Whilst the majority's reason of public policy to justify their decision is sound, logic seems to be missing in the overall line of reasoning.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Lord Templeman, Lord Mustill, Brown According, House Lords, , Officers Committee, Discussion Paper, Offences Person, sado-masochistic activities, Lord Mustill's, lord templeman, house lords, individual autonomy, policy public, bodily harm, public interest', consent assault, actual bodily, actual bodily harm, concept 'policy public, lawfully recognised exceptions, 'policy public interest', recognised exceptions, occasioning actual bodily,
Approximate Word count = 914
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)