consent

Collins v Wilcock

key facts Two plain clothes police officers were out looking for to suspected prostitutes One officer approached Miss Collins, who tried to walk away. The officer, without arresting her, grabbed her arm to stop her. In response, Collins scratched the officer. Collins was charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of duty under section 51 of the Police Act 1964.

legal principle established: Battery is any unlawful physical contact even minor made without consent or legal authority.

There is implied consent to certain everyday physical contact, but anything beyond this may be unlawful.

Police officers are only protected from assault when they are acting lawfully and within the scope of their powers. as stated by lord Geoff

r v tabassum 2000

key facts D falsely informed three victims that he was medically qualified and carrying out research for a cancer charity so they consented to him examining her breasts although the women consented to the nature of the act they had not consented to its true quality

legal principle the victims consent to a sexual act meant that the offence of battery was not established

r v melin 2019

ozan melin falsely claimed to be medically qualified and gave Botox injections to two women one of them suffered serious harm after a second procedure the women only consented

r v coney

key facts of the case The defendants, including Coney, attended an illegal prize fight (bare-knuckle boxing match) in a field. They were spectators and did not participate directly in the fight. The fight was unlawful under common law due to the risk of serious bodily harm, even though both fighters had consented. The defendants were charged as accessories to an assault

legal principle Consent is not a defence to a charge of assault where serious harm is intended or likely as in prize fights, the law does not allow people to consent to serious bodily injury.

Attending and encouraging or aiding such a fight can amount to aiding and abetting an assault, making spectators potentially criminally liable if they are actively involved.

However, mere presence as a passive spectator is not enough to establish criminal liability.

r v brown 1993

key facts a group of adult men engaged in consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts, which involved inflicting injuries on one another it was all filmed and all of them consented to it and did not complain The police discovered the footage and prosecuted the men for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and unlawful wounding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 the defendants argued that the victims had consented, so no offence had occurred.

legal principle Consent is not a valid defence to charges involving actual bodily harm or more serious injuries, except in certain recognised situations (e.g. sports, surgery, tattooing, and lawful chastisement).

The courts ruled that the public interest in preventing harm outweighed the individuals' right to consent to injury.

R v Slingsby (1995)

Vigorous sexual activity; during sexual intercourse there is obviously bodily contact during which injuries may occur inadvertently. However, these injuries would not amount to battery or ABH as long as the bodily contact was consented to; even where the activity was considered ‘vigorous’.

r v Wilson 1996

case for bodily adornment key facts The defendant, Mr. Wilson, used a hot knife to brand his initials ("W") onto his wife's buttocks at her request. She later required medical attention for the burns. The husband was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Crown argued that consent was not a valid defence, relying on the precedent set in R v Brown (1993).

legal principle The Court of Appeal held that consent was a valid defence in this case. The branding was seen as similar to tattooing or cosmetic body modification, which are legally permitted when consented to. The court distinguished this case from R v Brown, saying it involved personal adornment, not violence for sexual gratification.

r v jones 1987

key facts A group of schoolboys threw two younger boys into the air during horseplay (a common rough game among boys). One of the victims suffered a ruptured spleen and broken arm. The defendants were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and grievous bodily harm (GBH) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The issue was whether consent or belief in consent could be a defence, even though serious injuries occurred.

legal principle established The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions.

Held that consent (or an honest belief in consent) could be a valid defence in the context of rough horseplay, even where serious injury results, as long as:

There was no intention to cause harm, and

The activity was not malicious or aggressive.

r v dicta 2004

key facts Mohammed Dicta, who was HIV-positive, had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women. He did not disclose his HIV status, and both women later tested positive for HIV Dicta was charged under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) by recklessly transmitting a serious disease

legal principle Reckless transmission of HIV can constitute GBH under s.20, even without The rule from R v Clarence (1888) – that consent to sex implies consent to disease risk is no longer valid in cases involving HIV or serious STIs Informed consent to the risk of infection is required not just consent to the sexual act Disclosure of HIV status is an essential part of ensuring valid, informed consent; concealment undermines voluntariness

R v Emmett (1999)

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 puts the law onto a statutory footing whereby a person may not consent to the infliction of serious harm for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification.

r v bm 2018

key facts The appellant, Brendan McCarthy, was a registered tattooist and body piercer who also offered extreme body modification services such as ear removal, nipple removal, and tongue splitting. These procedures were performed without anaesthesia, and the clients signed consent forms acknowledging the risks. McCarthy was charged with three counts of wounding with intent (s.18), or alternatively inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

legal principle Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that consent is not a defence to serious bodily harm outside of limited, legally recognized categories. The procedures in question went well beyond accepted practices like tattooing or piercing and were comparable to surgical operations—which must be done by qualified medical professionals.

r v billingshurst 1978

case facts The incident occurred during a rugby match. The defendant, Billinghurst, punched an opposing player off the ball, fracturing his jaw. This was not part of the normal play. Billinghurst was charged with grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

legal principle Players impliedly consent to a level of physical contact reasonably expected during normal play. However, this consent does not cover deliberate or extra‑normal violence, such as a punch thrown off the ball. The jury must determine whether the conduct was within the scope of implied consent or amounted to unlawful battery.

r v barnes

key facts Barnes, the defendant, made a late tackle during an amateur football match, resulting in a serious leg injury to another player. He was charged with unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution argued that the tackle was "over the top" and reckless, thus criminal.

legal principle There is implied consent to injuries that may occur in the normal course of a sport, including negligent or reckless fouls, unless the act is: Intentional or very reckless, and Far outside the rules or spirit of the game. The threshold for criminal liability is high in the context of lawful sports.