R v BM: Errors in the Judicial Interpretation of Body Modification By Dr. Samuel Walker* * Lecturer in Law, Department of Law, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow BH12 5BB. Email:
[email protected] 1 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. KEYWORDS: modification, body, autonomy, offences against the person, medical justifica- tion 2 I. INTRODUCTION R v BM1 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 of- fence to become lawful if the person injured consents to the action. For example, boxers con- sent to their opponent hitting them and people receiving tattoos or piercings consent to the penetration of the skin involved.