Operation Spanner began in 1987. According to Ray Wire, a criminal psychologist and advisor to the Obscene Publications Squad during interviews on UK news program called Dial Midnight, it began after a police investigation looking into connections between a group of men and a series of rent-boy deaths. In court, each men charged successfully argued they were not responsible for the deaths of the young men, but that they were the results of SM-sex scenes gone wrong. By the time the trials began in December, 1990, over two hundred men had been interviewed.
The English phrase, “To throw a spanner in the works” is an aphorism that means to screw things up. A spanner in the UK and Canada is what we call a wrench in the US.
There are many different unsubstantiated rumors about how the UK Police came into contact with the men involved. What we do know, however, is that over two hundred men were interviewed by the Obscene Publications Squad (a semi-independent branch of the British police force that only answers to the Home Office Minister, whose only remit is the vaguely written Obscene Publications Act of 1968 where something is considered obscene if it is deemed to be obscene) and these interviews lead to a series of raids in October and November, 1989, and involving sixteen men, whom later newspaper reports said were involved in a ‘pedophilia sex ring’.
What the men had actually done was place ads in various magazines searching for consensual SM-sex partners, eventually leading to private parties hosted in the homes of at least three of the men, where the average attendance was between thirty and forty.
Each of the sixteen men faced a wide range of charges. Because of the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act, homosexual activities are only legal if there are only two people present. Because these house parties were attended by more than two people, and because homosexual SM sex was involved, they seemed to be in clear violation of the law, and charged with “Gross Indecency”. And, just for the record, only gay men can be charged like this.
Other laws these men were faced with included “Assault” and “Aiding and Abetting Assault” – claiming that consensual gay SM sex practices constituted as assault. A “Running A Disorderly House” charge can be brought against the owners or managers of any place where immoral or indecent activities have occurred, even in cases where such activities are completely legal.
Conspiracy Charges for something Against Persons Unknown is another issue all together. One of the most famous instances of this charge is from the 1970s, when a group of Anarchists were charged with Conspiracy to Cause Explosives Against Persons Unknown because the weed killer they used in their greenhouse could possibly be used to build explosives. That court case led to public outcry including the now famous “The Secret Policeman’s Ball.”
According to British law, only one of the Crown Courts can do a conspiracy trial. The lower, magistrates courts simply can’t bring these charges against someone. The decision about moving the trial to the Crown Court, because of the Conspiracy charges, was most likely the result of two previous cases. One of these cases involved the book The Modern Primitives by Re/Search which some considered obscene. The judge, however, threw out the case, because there was no case to answer. The other case involved the “scat club” trials, involving a group of men and a series of photographs picturing men eating excrement. The men were found guilty, and the entire case was ignored by both the gay community and the civil liberties groups. Because the charges were tried in a Magistrates court, the highest punishment available included a two thousand pound fine.
The most important charges brought against the men were the assault charges, which were brought under the Assault Against the Person Act of 1860. This act governs the terms in which a person can file an assault charge, as well as how a person can consent to such an assault. Because of the way that the act was written (in other words, it doesn’t mention any kind of sexual activity) one cannot consent to an assault during any sexual activity.
Sexual Assaults are covered under the Sexual Offences Act, therefore pushing charges under the Assault Against the Person Act had never been done before. Because of this, a new charge had to be made that had never been used before – Aiding and Abetting an Assault on Oneself.
Rumor has it that during an interview, one of the men arrested stated the local police wouldn’t charge them with anything at first because there must have been a problem with the warrants. It wasn’t until the Obscene Publications Squad arrived that the men were charged.
The trials began in December, 1990, in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, presided by Judge Rant, and none of the men believed they had anything to worry about. Everyone involved in the SM sexual encounters had fully consented with everything that was happening, there had not been a single complaint against them from anybody involved, nor from anyone in the community around them, and nobody involved had ever needed any sort of medical attention.
However, Judge Rant didn’t see things this way. He not only accepted that there was a case to be heard, but he also allowed the police to enter a videotape into evidence. This video consisted of three hours of edited material taken from over sixteen hours worth of videotapes the police had seized during the raids. Not only was this material highly edited, it was taken out of context, it re-ordered the time scales, and re-ordered the sequence of events. The jury was presented with a videotape that seemed like a barbaric set of abusive acts, which several policemen stated (on several occasions) they thought, at first, was a snuff tape.
The men were found guilty.
Several presidents were formed within this one court ruling. First, any sexual activity that bruises or breaks (cuts, pierces, or wound) the skin, or any sexual activity that causes pain for more than a ‘trifling or trivial’ period of time (which could be anywhere from ten minutes to several hours) would now be considered an illegal Assault Against the Person.
The second president consisted of legalizing the charges that one can aid and abet in an assault against themselves.
And, this is where things get interesting. According to the new law, the active partner (or, top) is the most important. The consent of the partner will not be taken into account – the law treats the activity the same no matter whether the act is consensual or not. Therefore, anyone who takes the active role in a consensual SM sexual scene is guilty of the equivalent of rape.
The person who takes the passive role, however, is another matter all together. This person has two options – he can either say he was a consensual partner, or say that his involvement was not consensual. If he states his involvement was not consensual, he will be treated entirely as a victim, and charges against him will most likely be dropped. Should the passive party state he was a consensual partner, they would then be charged with the new law of Aiding and Abetting an Assault Against Oneself.
When the men appealed the court decision, things got interesting again.
The defendants brought up an issue regarding a 1980 Solicitor General’s ruling stating that certain activities would be immune from prosecution if the activity was entirely consensual but contained an assault upon a person, if it were deemed “in the public interest.” Some obvious examples would consist of things like boxing or mountaineering. The Solicitor General, in his ruling, provided a short list, followed by an ‘etc.’ and the defendants believed that consensual sex should be considered as part of the list.
The judge presiding over the Appeals Court stated that the homosexuality of the men who had been charged was an issue for him. He cast a (personal) doubt on whether or not the submissive party could legally have wholly consented to what was happening to his body.
The only benefit that the men got during the appeal was that the men had argued that they did not know that they were committing a crime during their activities, and their sentences were reduced. The strange point here is that the men were charged with a new crime that became valid during their court trial process, so therefore the activity was not recognized as illegal at the times they were doing it.
The Law Lords Appeal (or, the British equivalent to the US Supreme Court) stated in December, 1992 that the case was interesting in two respects. First, because of the efforts of the Countdown On Spanner Campaign that brought this story to the attention of the UK news media, which seemed to be more in favor of the men accused. The other reason he found it interesting was because the appeal judges ruled 3:2 – two judges feeling that the state had no right to intervene in matters of private consensual sexual encounters. The Law Lords upheld the convictions in March 1993, but stated the case was about sexuality and not violence or assault.
In March 1993, three of the defendants appealed to the European Courts of Human Rights, alleging the UK Courts were in violation of Article 8, which establishes a right to privacy, and is usually taken to include private expressions of sexuality.
In Janurary, 1995, the European Commission on Human Rights verbally accepted that the case should be presented before the European Courts of Human Rights. Later that year, The Spanner Trust Fund was officially and formally announced. The goal of the Spanner Trust is to help fight this issue. In December, 1995, the European Commissioners gave a written decision that the case should go to the European Court, recognizing that the issue was about sexuality and not violence, but stating the UK Government was right to intervene.
In October, 1996, the European Court hears the Spanner Appeal. In Feburary, 1997, the appeal was turned down. The Spanner Trust continues to fight these laws.
The Spanner Law, as it is referred to today, is still in effect. In and of itself, SM Sex (heterosexual or homosexual) is itself, not illegal, however any act that bruises, causes welts, piercings, or wounds is illegal, and considered an assault. If you consent to letting another person do that sort of things to you, you can be arrested for helping that person assault yourself.
There was one case involving a branding incident between two people who had been in a legal, heterosexual marriage, however the courts did not find their activities were illegal.
Any pornographic material that contains SM is illegal in the UK, it is illegal to send it through the mail, and one cannot order SM videos or send them into Britain. If any sex toys which could be used in SM are brought into the country, they will be confiscated and destroyed, since the only reason one would have them would be to break the law.
Sex is any sort of public place (such as clubs or saunas) is illegal. Several clubs have been raided and prosecuted under the “Disorderly House” laws.
The police can press charges against anyone practicing consensual SM sex if they either see it happening, have a witness who saw it happening, or if you tell someone it happened, they can use that witness against you.
© 2003; Corky McGraw