Exorcism, Religious Freedom and Consent
| Date | 01 August 2016 |
| Published date | 01 August 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018316657950 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Exorcism, Religious Freedom
and Consent: The Devil
in the Detail
Helen Hall
Nottingham Trent University, UK
Abstract
The ruling in RvBrown that consent could not be a defence to actual bodily harm or more
serious injury unless a recognised exemption applied has been much criticised. When con-
sidered exclusively in light of adult sexual activity, such criticisms may appear extremely per-
suasive. However, the issue of assault within exorcism reveals that there are other contexts in
which the arguments appear more complex. This article examines the criminal law relating to
consent and exorcism and asks how we should deal with the interplay between the general and
the specific when it comes to formulating legal policy.
Keywords
Assault, consent, religion and exorcism
Introduction
1
What are the limits of consent where bodily harm and religious rituals are concerned? This issue has
received little academic attention, despite a number of cases in the England and Wales
2
and elsewhere,
3
in which adult individuals have died following spiritually motivated assaults.
Although now more than 20 years old, the leading criminal case on consent to physical assault
causing harm remains RvBrown.
4
The facts of this decision famously involved sadomasochistic
liaisons, and the lion’s share of subsequent authority has also concerned sexual practices.
5
Corresponding author:
Helen Hall, Nottingham Trent University, Burton St, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK.
Email: helen.hall@ntu.ac.uk
1. I am indebted to Javier Garcı´a Oliva (Manchester University), Tom Lewis (Nottingham Trent University), Catarina Sjolin
Knight (Nottingham Trent University), Neil Cobb (Manchester University), Diana Ginn (Dalhousie University) and The Rt
Reverend Dominic Walker OGS for their invaluable help and insightful comments on this article. Needless to say any infe-
licities are mine alone.
2. RvRabiya Patel and Others [1995] 16 Cr App R (5) 827; RvNicholas Narideen Sogunro [1997] 2 Cr App R(S) 89.
3. RvLee [2006] 5 LRC 716 (New Zealand); RvMejia-Lopez [2003] OJ No 4846 (Canada).
4. RvBrown and other appeals [1993] 2 All ER 75.
5. See for example: RvSlingsby [1995] Crim LR 570; RvWilson [1997] QB 47 CA and Emmett [1999] EWCA Crim 1710 CA.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2016, Vol. 80(4) 241–253
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018316657950
clj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial