R v BM: Errors in the Judicial Interpretation of Body Modification
Authors: Walker, S.
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law
Volume: 83
Issue: 4
Pages: 245-257
eISSN: 1740-5580
ISSN: 0022-0183
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319834372
Abstract:R v BM is the latest case to consider the exceptions to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). The exceptions allow an action causing injury that would be a criminal offence to become lawful if the person injured consents to the action. The consequences of this judgment is that body modifications are categorised as medical procedures (and therefore subject to the medical exception only) and new exceptions should not be developed on a case by case basis, instead allocating development of the exceptions to Parliament. Two implications follow from the BM judgment. First, it provided a limited definition of body modifications which are now categorised as medical procedures. Secondly, their Lordships have restricted further development of the lawful exceptions to offences against the person. This is a lost opportunity for developing the common law exceptions to the OAPA through an autonomy-based liberal judicial interpretation.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31872/
Source: Scopus
R v BM: Errors in the Judicial Interpretation of Body Modification
Authors: Walker, S.
Journal: JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW
Volume: 83
Issue: 4
Pages: 245-257
eISSN: 1740-5580
ISSN: 0022-0183
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319834372
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31872/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
R v BM: Errors in the Judicial Interpretation of Body Modification
Authors: Walker, S.E.P.
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law
Volume: 83
Issue: 4
Pages: 245-257
ISSN: 0022-0191
Abstract:R v BM is the latest case to consider the exceptions to Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). The exceptions allow an action causing injury that would be a criminal offence to become lawful if the person injured consents to the action. The outcome of this judgement is that body modifications are categorised as medical procedures (and therefore subject to the medical exception only) and new exceptions should not be developed on a case by case basis, instead allocating development of the exceptions to Parliament. Two implications follow from the BM judgement. First, it provided a limited definition of body modifications which are now categorised as medical procedures. Second, their Lordships have restricted further development of the lawful exceptions to offences against the person. This is a lost opportuni-ty for developing the common law exceptions to the OAPA through an autonomy-based lib-eral judicial interpretation.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31872/
Source: BURO EPrints