“Consensual branding between spouses held not to be unlawful assault.”
Wilson branded his initials on his wife's buttocks with a hot knife at her request. The wife later sought medical treatment and the matter came to police attention. Wilson was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Whether consensual activity between spouses that causes actual bodily harm can constitute assault, and whether the decision in R v Brown applies to such intimate relationships.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The consensual activity between husband and wife was not unlawful assault.
This case demonstrates the limits of the Brown principle and shows that consent can be a defence to assault in intimate relationships where the activity serves a recognised lawful purpose. It's important for understanding consent in assault cases.
You're reading the free summary of R v Wilson. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.