Why was the conviction upheld in R v. Emmett (1999)?

The conviction in R v. Emmett (1999) was upheld primarily because the actions taken by the defendant involved serious harm that went beyond what could be classified as consensual activity. Essentially, the act of tying a plastic bag over his lover's head and setting fire to lighter fuel constituted a significant risk of harm and demonstrated a reckless disregard for life.

The court found that even in the context of consent within a relationship, certain actions – particularly those that could lead to serious injury or death – are not legally condoned. The law establishes clear boundaries regarding consent when it pertains to violent or potentially lethal actions. Therefore, while consent may be recognized in contexts like rough play, the nature and severity of the actions taken in this case crossed those legal and ethical boundaries, justifying the conviction.

This case illustrates the legal principles surrounding consent in the context of harm and emphasizes that certain levels of injury and risk are impermissible, irrespective of the participants' agreement.