R v Jones [1987] Crim LR 123
Criminal – Assault – Grievous Bodily Harm – Injury Caused by “Rough and Undisciplined Play”
Facts:
There were six appellants to the appeal a conviction under s 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. All had pleaded guilty to at least two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm, arising from an incident in the playground. The two complainants were thrown into the air and landed on the ground, causing them serious injuries. The judge declined to give a direction to the jury as to whether the boys were participated in rough horseplay with intent to injure.
Issues:
The issue was whether the complainants had consented to ‘rough and undisciplined horseplay’ and whether there had been intent to cause serious injury. Section 20 requires an intention or reckless on the part of the defendant/appellant in their actions, which was found not to exist.
Held:
McCowan J held that consent to engage in horseplay was a defence where there had been no intention to seriously injure. It was further opined that if the jury had been given the opportunity to consider the defence of consent, in that the appellants had only been participating in “rough and undisciplined play”, and where there was no intention to cause harm or serious injury, then they would have likely rejected the conviction. Lord Chief Justice was found to have erred in failing to refer to the actions of the appellants as “rough and undisciplined play” and removing the defence of consent which ultimately impacted the outcome of the case. The conviction was quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary broadly reflects the decision in R v Jones (1987) 83 Cr App R 375, in which the Court of Appeal held that genuine belief in consent to rough and undisciplined horseplay could negate the mens rea required under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and that the trial judge erred in withdrawing the consent issue from the jury.
The legal principle established in this case remains good law and was affirmed by the House of Lords in R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212, where the court drew a clear distinction between consensual horseplay (where consent can operate as a defence) and consensual sado-masochistic activity causing actual bodily harm or worse (where it cannot). The horseplay exception was further confirmed in R v Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006 and R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392. There have been no statutory changes to s 20 of the 1861 Act that affect this principle. The article is therefore still legally accurate in its core holdings, though readers should be aware that the consent defence in criminal assault cases operates within a framework of exceptions firmly established by subsequent case law, particularly Brown.
One factual point in the article requires attention: the six defendants had pleaded guilty, so there was no jury at trial; the appeal concerned the judge’s failure to leave the consent issue to the jury, which was relevant to whether the guilty pleas should be treated as equivocal. Readers should consult the full judgment for precision on this procedural aspect.
