Operation Spanner

The 1980s was a period of rising negative sentiments towards homosexuality in Britain, peaking in 1987 when the British Social Attitudes Survey found that 75% of the population thought that homosexual activity was always or mostly wrong.{{Cite web|url=http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-30/personal-relationships/homosexuality.aspx|title=British Social Attitudes 30 - Homosexuality}} That year, a high-profile public information campaign Don't Die of Ignorance saw the delivery of an educational leaflet about HIV/AIDS to every household in Britain.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15886670|title=HIV/Aids: Why were the campaigns successful in the West?|last=Kelly|first=Jon|date=28 November 2011|work=BBC News|access-date=25 May 2019}} The association of gay and bisexual men with the AIDS pandemic worsened their stigmatisation.{{Cite book|title=Population and Society|last=Sharma|first=A. K.|publisher=Concept Pub. Co.|year=2012|isbn=978-81-8069-818-7|location=New Delhi|pages=242}}

File:ConservativePartyPoster1987.jpg

The Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher made opposition to LGBT education a pillar of its 1987 general election campaign, issuing posters accusing the Labour Party of promoting the book Young, Gay and Proud in British schools.{{Cite news|url=https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/24/what-was-section-28-homophobic-legislation-30-years-thatcher/|title=What was Section 28? The history of the homophobic legislation 30 years on|last=Ashenden|first=Amy|date=24 May 2018|work=Pink News}} At that year's Conservative Party Conference, Thatcher warned that children were being taught "that they have an inalienable right to be gay".{{Cite web|url=https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106941|title=Speech to Conservative Party Conference|website=Margaret Thatcher Foundation}}

In 1988, Section 28 of the Local Government Act prohibited local authorities from "intentionally promoting homosexuality".{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/section/28/enacted|title=Local Government Act 1988 - Section 28|website=legislation.gov.uk}} The measure received broad support from Conservative MPs including Peter Bruinvels, who commented that "Clause 28 will help outlaw [homosexuality] and the rest will be done by AIDS".{{Cite book|title=The Global 1980s: People, Power and Profit|last=Davis|first=Jonathan|publisher=Routledge|year=2019|isbn=978-0429624360}} In the years that followed, further legislation was proposed to discriminate against LGBT foster carers{{Cite journal|last=Logan|first=Janette|date=2007|title=Lesbian and gay fostering and adoption in the United Kingdom: Prejudice, progress and the challenges of the present|url=https://journals.whitingbirch.net/index.php/SWSSR/article/viewFile/468/504|journal=Social Work & Social Sciences Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=35–47|doi=10.1921/19649|doi-access=free}} and to increase the penalties for cruising.{{Cite news|title=Clause 25 'means prison for gay sex'|last=Fraser|first=Jean|date=22 December 1990|work=The Pink Paper}}

Although male homosexuality had been partially decriminalised in England and Wales in 1967, the offence of gross indecency was still widely used to criminalise sexual activity between men.{{Cite news|title=Policing Gay Sex|last=Derbyshire|first=Philip|date=March 1990|work=Gay Times}} An investigation by Gay Times found that police in England and Wales recorded 2,022 such offences in 1989, the highest rate since decriminalisation.{{Cite news|title=Authorities deny sex arrests policy|last=Smith|first=David|date=June 1990|work=Gay Times}} That year, 30% of all convictions for sexual offences in England and Wales concerned consensual gay sex, with such prosecutions costing the government £12 million, and the resulting prison terms an estimated £5.5 million.{{Cite news|title=Criminal Consent|last=Tatchell|first=Peter|date=Winter 1992|work=Civil Liberty Agenda}}

The Obscene Publications Squad was a branch of the Metropolitan Police tasked with enforcing obscenity law, most notably the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which forbade the distribution of any article that "[tended] to deprave and corrupt" those who encountered it.{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/contents|title=Obscene Publications Act 1959|website=legislation.gov.uk}}

In 1976, following a three-year internal inquiry,{{Cite news|title=12 Yard men on bribe charges|date=29 February 1976|work=The Observer}} it was revealed that the squad had been running a protection racket over the Soho sex industry for at least two decades,{{Cite news|title=Something smelly in the Yard|date=13 May 1977|work=The Guardian}} with Detective Superintendent William Moody alone receiving an estimated £25,000 a year in bribes.{{Cite news|title=The end of Scotland Yard's firm within a firm|date=25 August 1977|work=The Guardian}} Prosecutors described a systemically corrupt organisation{{Cite news|title=The squad which gave obscenity a meaning of its own|date=14 May 1977|work=The Guardian}} in which new recruits were coerced into attending 'Friday night shareouts', during which officers would be taken one by one into a store room at Scotland Yard and handed cash.{{Cite news|title=Porn squad 'accepted thousands'|date=10 November 1976|work=The Guardian}} Over the next two years, 13 officers were jailed,{{Cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/best-law-firms/profile-legal/article/daphne-skillern-pgzn9t3ngvb|title=Daphne Skillern|date=27 November 2012|work=The Times}} earning the Obscene Publications Squad its nickname: The Dirty Squad.{{Cite news|title=Reshuffle at the Yard by McNee|date=20 August 1977|work=The Guardian}}

In the wake of the scandal, officers of the Obscene Publications Squad were limited to two years of service, later extended to three, in an effort to combat corruption.{{cite AV media|title=Blue Boys|date=1992|type=Television production|publisher=Channel 4}} The reformed squad allied itself with the socially conservative campaign group National Viewers' and Listeners' Association and its controversial founder Mary Whitehouse, with the head of the squad becoming an annual speaker at Whitehouse's fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s.{{Cite news|title=Simone's attractions fail to win case against sex censorship|last=Linton|first=Martin|date=11 October 1990|work=The Guardian}}

The squad gained significant notoriety during this period for its role in the 'video nasties' moral panic—during which its officers raided video rental shops and seized horror films such as Evil Dead II and The Driller Killer{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/film-censorship-how-moral-panic-led-to-a-mass-ban-of-video-nasties-9600998.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220524/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/film-censorship-how-moral-panic-led-to-a-mass-ban-of-video-nasties-9600998.html |archive-date=24 May 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Film censorship: How moral panic led to a mass ban of 'video nasties'|last=Phelan|first=Laurence|date=13 July 2014|work=The Independent}}—as well as a crackdown on gay pornography.{{Cite news|title=Gay men are living in fear of video prosecutions|last=Smith|first=David|date=1988|work=Him Magazine|issue=12}} Its critics accused it of having a Christian fundamentalist agenda, while the Lesbian and Gay Policing Association said its activities "damaged relations" between the LGBT community and the police.{{Cite news|title=End of a porn era|last=Saxton|first=Andrew|date=14 October 1994|work=The Pink Paper}}

In October 1987, Greater Manchester Police acquired a videotape,{{Cite web|url=https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/august_2018/information-rights-unit---information-on-operation-spanner|title=Freedom of Information Request|website=Metropolitan Police}} codenamed 'KL7',{{Cite book|title=Dirty squad : the story of the Obscene Publications Branch|last=Hames, Michael.|date=2000|publisher=Little, Brown|isbn=0316853216|location=New York|oclc=44101472}} depicting consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity between a group of men, including a sequence in which one man passed a nail through a piercing in another man's foreskin{{Cite news|title=Lord Lane plans ruling on violent sex games|last=Cohen|first=Nick|date=5 February 1992|work=The Independent}} and hammered it into a block of wood, before making a series of incisions into the man's penis with a scalpel.{{Cite news|title=Myths, half-truths and fantasies|last=Richardson|first=Colin|date=February 1992|work=Gay Times}}

Greater Manchester Police launched an investigation into the KL7 tape and began looking for the men featured in the video. Their enquiries expanded as further tapes featuring whipping, spanking and wax play were seized,{{Cite news|title=Judges throw out consent appeal by sex torture group|last=Shaw|first=Terence|date=20 February 1992|work=The Daily Telegraph}} eventually leading to the involvement of sixteen police forces{{cite BAILII|litigants=R v Brown|link=R v Brown|court=UKHL|division=|year=1993|num=19|para=|eucase=|parallelcite=1 AC 212|date=11 March 1993|courtname=auto|juris=}} including West Mercia Police{{Cite news|title=Massive vice ring quiz still going on say police|date=31 March 1988|work=Shropshire Star}} and West Yorkshire Police.{{Cite news|title=Police Silence Over Gay Murder Mystery|last=Smith|first=David|date=December 1987|work=Him Magazine}} A meeting was held to discuss the organisational structure of the expanded probe, and it was decided that the Obscene Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police should lead the investigation, now called Operation Spanner.

On 4 November 1987, raids were carried out at the homes of men in Bolton, Shrewsbury and Shropshire. At the Shropshire address, sniffer dogs were taken around the property's garden, with police claiming to have reason to think that individuals may have been killed during the making of the tapes.{{Cite news|title=Torture vice gang sentenced|last=Steele|first=John|date=20 December 1990|work=The Daily Telegraph}} Activists and defence lawyers later questioned the likelihood of the men's consensual home sex videos being mistaken for snuff films, leading Detective Superintendent Michael Hames of the Obscene Publications Squad to admit that he could not explain how such an error could have been made. Nonetheless, he later insisted, "such reckless and escalating violence, left unchecked, was bound to lead to someone getting killed".

Those interviewed during the raids described a loose knit circle of men who met through advertisements in gay contact magazines and gathered regularly in various locations for sadomasochistic sex sessions, some of which were recorded to video and shared among the group.{{Cite news|title=Defiance of an average man|last=Woods|first=Chris|date=12 March 1993|work=Capital Gay}} Most cooperated fully with the police's enquiries, acknowledging their involvement in the group and identifying themselves on the seized tapes, unaware that they may have broken the law.

Further raids were carried out on 10 November in Pontypridd, where a large quantity of sadomasochistic paraphernalia was seized, and on 11 November in Birmingham. The same day, the offices of the gay magazine Sir were raided. Other contact magazines including Gay Galaxy and Corporal Contacts were also raided during the course of the investigation. Two further raids were carried out on 16 November, at homes in Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead.

That month, the first reports of the investigation appeared in the gay press. One man questioned by police in relation to Operation Spanner told Him magazine that officers were working from a diary seized during an earlier raid, and had mentioned snuff films in the course of their questioning. An officer with Greater Manchester Police denied that the operation was related to snuff films but went on to falsely speculate that the investigation may be connected to an unsolved 1985 murder in Leeds.

By the beginning of 1988, police still did not know the identities of the two men on the KL7 tape, despite having unknowingly interviewed the man who filmed the scene the previous November. Though no faces were visible on the tape, the Obscene Publications Squad attempted to identify one of the men by a distinctive joint deformity on the index finger of his left hand,{{Cite episode|title=Church of England - One Foundation?|series=Panorama|series-link=Panorama (TV programme)|date=28 March 1988}} distributing a still image of the finger to police forces across the UK.

File:Panorama close up revealing Operation Spanner suspect.jpg, used to identify one of the men featured on the KL7 tape|alt=]]

On 29 March, an officer with Hampshire Constabulary reported that he had spotted the man on that week's episode of Panorama. Detectives consulted a recording of the episode and recognised their suspect in a sequence depicting a "special service of blessing" performed by a Church of England reverend for a gay couple. The man's joint deformity was visible in a close-up shot of his partner placing a ring onto his finger. A week later, on 7 April, police interviewed the man at a cafe in Evesham, and proceeded to search his home. He identified the other man on the KL7 tape, and a raid was carried out on that man's Broadway home the same day.

As the case began to come together, reporters were briefed that Operation Spanner "could be dealt with at the Old Bailey", prompting speculation that indictable-only offences would be brought against the men. The Obscene Publications Squad continued to build their case throughout 1989, even as the Metropolitan Police sought to replace the head of the squad, Detective Superintendent Leslie Bennett, after he was found to have used the Police National Computer to look up the license plate of his ex-wife's new partner.{{Cite news|title=Computer error by superintendent|date=11 October 1991|work=The Guardian}}

Over the course of the investigation, in excess of 400 videotapes were seized, though a large number of these were commercial releases, and in some cases non-pornographic. The cost of the investigation was estimated at £2.5 million. Police were unable to find any participants who had not consented to the activities which took place, nor any who sustained lasting injuries.{{Cite news|title=We don't want the government in our bedroom|last=Gerrard|first=Nicci|date=20 October 1996|work=The Observer}}

In September 1989, sixteen men were charged with more than 100 offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding. Several were charged with aiding and abetting assaults against themselves, charges which the Crown Prosecution Service said were "rare, except in cases where injuries were allegedly inflicted for a false insurance claim".{{Cite news|title=Sixteen charged after two-year vice investigation|last=Mills|first=Heather|date=19 September 1989|work=The Independent}} In addition, one man was charged with bestiality and two were charged in relation to an indecent photograph of a child.

On 9 October 1989, the men appeared before Camberwell Magistrates' Court to face the charges against them. They were remanded to reappear at Lambeth Magistrates' Court on 20 November.{{Cite news|url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11931638.15-charged-after-operation-spanner/|title=15 charged after Operation Spanner|date=10 October 1989|work=The Herald}}

The charges brought against the men included conspiracy charges, which as indictable-only offences can only be heard in Crown Court, so the case was referred to the Old Bailey. The fact that these charges were later dropped led to accusations that the government viewed the trial as a test case,{{Cite news|title=Case redefines what consenting adults can do|last=Cohen|first=Nick|date=20 December 1990|work=The Independent}} and intentionally sought to have it heard in Crown Court, where legal precedent could be set in the event of a guilty verdict.

File:Justice Old Bailey (4868602671).jpg

The trial at the Old Bailey began on 29 October 1990 before Judge James Rant. The judge heard legal arguments from some of the accused that they could not be guilty because everyone involved had consented to what took place. However, Judge Rant rejected the argument and ruled that consent was not a defence, commenting that "people must sometimes be protected from themselves".{{Cite news|title=Sado-masochists plead guilty after judge rules that people must be protected from themselves|date=21 November 1990|work=The Guardian}}

His decision relied heavily on R v Coney, an 1882 case in which participants in a bare-knuckle boxing match were found guilty of assault despite their consent to take part,{{Cite news|title=Spanner appeal – the wait begins|last=Woods|first=Chris|date=11 December 1992|work=Capital Gay}} and R v Donovan, a 1934 case in which a man was convicted of assault for caning a woman with her consent.{{Cite news|title=Spanner in the works|last=Kershaw|first=Alex|date=8 February 1992|work=Weekend Guardian}} After Judge Rant's ruling, the defendants changed their pleas to guilty, and were convicted on 7 November.

The remainder of the trial was dedicated to sentencing. Beginning on 11 December 1990, prosecutor Michael Worsley QC detailed the defendants' behaviour, which he characterised as "brute homosexual activity in sinister circumstances, about as far removed as can be imagined from the concept of human love". He explained that the state's evidence came not only from the men's own testimony, but also the many home videos seized during the investigation, though he conceded that these tapes had not been intended for distribution.

He described a group whose "nucleus" of key members "corrupted" others into attending "sessions of violence", where sadistic "masters" assaulted submissive "victims". Despite criticism that this framing misrepresented the nature of sadomasochism, his words were echoed in the press, with The Daily Telegraph branding the group a "torture vice gang" and The Times identifying the "leaders of [a] vicious and perverted sex gang".

Meanwhile, the defence argued for the consideration of a number of mitigating factors, including the fact that all those involved had consented to what took place, that they were all above the age of consent, and that none had at any time sought or required medical treatment.

Anna Worrall QC, representing one of the defendants, objected to a number of points raised by the prosecution, including the HIV status of some of the men, and the fact that police had taken sniffer dogs to the Shropshire raid, supposedly to search for buried bodies. She warned that "the world's press is listening to this" and that sensationalist reporting might "increase the punishment" of the defendants. Both details were indeed widely reported, with The Independent noting the men's HIV statuses in an article by Nick Cohen.

Also widely reported was Judge Rant's "horror" at having to watch the videotapes admitted into evidence.{{Cite news|title=Porno Perverts Will Kill Warns Top Cop|date=20 December 1990|work=Daily Star}} He requested an adjournment after going "white in the face" during one viewing, and responded to a question about a sequence from the KL7 tape by saying, "I am not likely to have forgotten that film. I don't think any of us is likely to forget that particular film".

At the end of the first day of the sentencing hearing, one of the defendants was hospitalised with broken wrists after allegedly being pushed to the ground and kicked by press photographers as he left the court.{{Cite news|last=Cohen|first=Nick|date=14 December 1990|title=Photographers 'kicked torture case man'|work=The Independent}}

Two days before Judge Rant was due to sentence the men, Detective Superintendent Michael Hames, head of the Obscene Publications Squad, published an article in the Daily Mail in which he called the defendants "the most horrific porn ring ever to appear before a British court". The National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Acts called the article "heavily propagandist" and filed an official complaint against Hames.{{Cite web|url=https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1992-45.pdf|title=Complaints Against Sir Peter Imbert, the Chief Commissioner, and Superintendent Michael Hames, of the Metropolitan Police|last=Webb|first=David|date=22 June 1992}}

On 19 December, Judge Rant sentenced the men, handing down eight prison sentences of between 12 months and {{frac|4|1|2}} years.{{Cite news|title=Eight jailed for 'degrading' acts of cruelty|last=Cohen|first=Nick|date=20 December 1990|work=The Independent}} Passing the judgement, he said:

{{quote|Much has been said about individual liberty and the rights people have to do what they want with their own bodies, but the courts must draw the line between what is acceptable in a civilised society and what is not. In this case, the practices clearly lie on the wrong side of that line.}}

Five of the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal in February 1992.{{Cite news|title=Convictions for sado-masochist assault upheld|last=Victor|first=Peter|date=20 February 1992|work=The Times}} Three judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane, upheld the men's convictions, ruling that their consent to the activities involved was "immaterial".{{Cite news|title=Sado-masochists guilty verdict upheld|last=Dyer|first=Clare|date=20 February 1992|work=The Guardian}} However, Lord Lane acknowledged that the men did not appreciate that their acts were criminal, and therefore reduced five of the prison sentences handed down by Judge Rant, cutting the longest down to six months.

Lord Lane granted the men leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which at the time was the UK's highest court of appeal, saying there was a "general public importance" in settling the question of whether the prosecution must prove that a victim did not consent before it could obtain a conviction for assault or wounding.

{{Main|R v Brown}}

In March 1993, the five defendants appealed their case to the House of Lords. Ann Mallalieu QC, for the defence, argued that interfering in the private lives of consenting adults was justified only in cases where "private activity spills over into the public domain with adverse effects".

She went on to list several reasons why the case should not have been brought to trial, including the fact that no complaint was ever made to police, no serious or permanent injuries resulted from the activities, and participation in the acts was controlled, and limited to those wishing to take part.

The appeal was dismissed by a 3–2 majority of the Lords,{{Cite news|title='Pain for pleasure' gays guilty, say lords|last=Dyer|first=Clare|date=12 March 1993|work=The Guardian}} with Lord Templeman declaring that:

{{quote|In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. ... Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.}}

{{Main|Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom}}

In February 1997, three of the defendants took their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, arguing that their convictions had violated their right to "respect for their private lives through the expression of their sexual personality" as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.{{Citation|title=Laskey and Others v. The United Kingdom – 21627/93 21826/93 21974/93 – Chamber Judgment [1997] ECHR 4|date=19 February 1997|url=http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1997/4.html|access-date=2019-05-26}} In a landmark ruling, nine judges upheld that the laws under which the men were convicted were "necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health".{{Cite news|title=Sado-masochists fail in appeal on human rights|last=Shaw|first=Terence|date=20 February 1997|work=The Telegraph}} The ruling followed pleas by the British government for the European Court to give greater consideration to individual nations' particular social mores.{{Cite news|title=Sado-masochists' appeal fails in landmark Euro-court ruling|last=Dyer|first=Clare|date=20 February 1997|work=The Guardian}}

There was immediate criticism of the investigation and trial in 1990, with the Gay London Policing Group describing the sentences as "outrageous" and Andrew Puddephat, general secretary of Liberty, calling for a "right to privacy enshrined in law".{{Cite news|title=Sentences 'cloud consent issue'|last=Campbell|first=Duncan|date=20 December 1990|work=The Guardian}} Keir Starmer said the judiciary had "effectively imposed its morality on others" and argued the "unrepresentative make-up of the judiciary makes it ill-equipped to do this".{{Cite news|title=Rights protest at 'dictated morality'|last=Gibb|first=Frances|date=20 December 1990|work=The Times}} The Pink Paper branded the case a homophobic "show trial" designed to "get a clear ruling on the illegality of S&M sex, especially amongst gay men".{{Cite news|title=S&M sex 'illegal' after show trial|date=5 January 1991|work=The Pink Paper}}

File:SM Pride march led by Countdown on Spanner.jpg

On 16 February 1991, an estimated 5,000 people marched through Central London to protest the outcome of the Spanner trial, as well as the proposed Clause 25 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have raised the penalties for cruising and cottaging.{{Cite news|title=Campaign fuelled by 5,000 turnout|date=22 February 1991|work=Capital Gay}} On 13 April, thousands more protested the same issues at the Liberation '91 march in Manchester.{{Cite news|title=Full equality by the year 2000|date=19 April 1991|work=Capital Gay}}

In August 1992, the campaign group Countdown on Spanner was formed in an effort to reverse the Court of Appeal ruling, and "demand the recognition that sadomasochism is a valid, sensual and legitimate part of human sexuality". The following month, it began publishing the newsletter Spanner People, and staged a public demonstration calling on Detective Superintendent Michael Hames, head of the Obscene Publications Squad, to resign.{{Cite news|title=Campaign kicks off with call for Hames to resign|date=September 1992|work=Spanner People}} In 1996 Countdown on Spanner received the Large Nonprofit Organization of the Year award as part of the Pantheon of Leather Awards.🖉{{Cite web|url=https://www.theleatherjournal.com/pantheon-awards/recipients|title=Pantheon of Leather Awards All Time Recipients - The Leather Journal|website=www.theleatherjournal.com|access-date=26 December 2020|archive-date=25 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150325083826/https://www.theleatherjournal.com/pantheon-awards/recipients|url-status=dead}}

On 28 November, the inaugural SM Pride parade was held, with more than 700 people marching through Central London.{{Cite news|title=Spanner is Only Just Beginning|date=August 1993|work=Spanner People}}

In 1995, the Spanner Trust was established to provide assistance to the Spanner defendants, lobby for a change in British law to legalise sadomasochism, and provide assistance to any person subjected to discrimination because of their consensual sexual behaviour.{{Cite news|title=The Spanner Trust Fund|date=May 1995|work=Spanner People}}

That December, following a public consultation, the Law Commission published 'Consent in the Criminal Law', a consultation paper which provisionally proposed the decriminalisation of consensual sadomasochistic acts, except in the case of 'seriously disabling injury'.{{Cite news|title=Commission says pain for pleasure should not be criminal|last=Dyer|first=Clare|date=23 February 1994|work=The Guardian}} This proposal was never adopted into law.

• Consensual crime
• Consent (criminal law)
• Victimless crime

{{Reflist}}

• [http://www.spannertrust.org/ The Spanner Trust]
• [https://www.theguardian.com/lasting-marks Lasting Marks], a short documentary on the case from The Guardian

Category:Gay male BDSM

Category:1993 in British law

Category:1987 in the United Kingdom

Category:English criminal law

Category:LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom

Category:1987 in LGBTQ history

Category:Law enforcement in England and Wales