The threat of violence existed by the act. If it caused apprehension with respect to the threat, then there exists a possible case of common assault.
Whether it would be prosecuted is another case, quite possibly you would have to take the prosecution yourself....
Just to show you how ridiculous the law is:
Quote:
In December 1990 in the UK, 16 gay men were given prison sentences of up to four and a half years or fined for engaging in consensual SM activity. This followed a police investigation called Operation Spanner prompted by the chance finding of a videotape of SM activities.
The convictions have now been upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Law Lords in the UK and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Despite what you may have read in the newspapers, for the most part, the men were convicted of the standard offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Their defence, that they had all consented to the activities, was denied.
SM is not itself 'illegal'.
However, if the police discover you have engaged in SM activities which have caused injury, you and your partner could be prosecuted for assault
Quote:
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
Published May 23, 2008
Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Underhill
Judgment May 14, 2008
Where a police officer restrained a person, but did not at that time intend or purport to arrest him, he was committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified.
The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so held when allowing an appeal by way of case stated from the dismissal by Luton Crown Court (Judge Bevan, QC and justices) of the appeal by Fraser Wood against his conviction by Stevenage Justices for offences of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty, and of threatening behaviour contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The police officers had attended an incident acting on reports that a man called “Fraser”, who had a police record for violent behaviour but was unknown to the officers themselves, had behaved in a disruptive manner. When the defendant appeared one of the officers had taken hold of him by the arm and asked whether he was Fraser.
The second officer had taken hold of him when he denied that was his name, although at the time he was being addressed as “Fraser” by some of his companions. The defendant’s ensuing struggle with the officers had given rise to the charges and convictions.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
) and our victim could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
