consent

What is consent never a defence to ?

Murder, offences where serious injury is caused

What is consent ?

Actions are lawful and don’t attract criminal liabilty bc alleged victim gave their full permission to the D’s actions and in the circumstances the subsequent harm that they have caused

What is the defence ?

A complete defence

What case is this shown in ?

R v Slingsby

What is express consent ?

V expressly consents to whatever the level of harm is (doesn’t need to be written but often will be)

What is implied consent ?

V consents to being there or taking part in the activity/ in the society

What case is this shown in ?

Lord Geoff’s guidance in Collins v Wilco I

What does V’s consent have to be ?

Real and genuine

What is meant by the term real ?

V must be capable of understanding the nature and quality of the act

What case shows this ?

Burrell v Harmer

What happens in medical cases ?

Children can consent if they understand the nature and quality of the action

What case shows this ?

Gillick v West norfolk

What is meant by the word genuine ?

For consent to be ingenuine, d must mislead has to who they are,not their right to do something

What case shows this ?

R v richardson

What happens if d lies about having qualifications linked to their identity ?

Then it will invalidate the genuine consent

What case shows this ?

R v Merlin

What did r v Tabussum show ?

Where D deceives V as to the nature and quality of the act and their identity then consent is not genuine

What must the action be ?

Capable of being consented to

Whats a general rule ?

People cant consent to more than battery

What is it not legal to consent to ?

If its not in the public interest to allow people to injure each other for no good reason

What case shows this ?

AG red no6 of 1980

What are some allowed examples of?

Tattooing, piercing, branding, surgery and medical procedures, sport, horseplay, sexual activity

What can V not consent to ?

Extreme body modification with no medical benefit - R v BM

Is Branding the flesh of another human being with initials accepted ?

Yes bc its adornment r v Wilson

Is street fighting allowed ?

No but you can box, Queensbury rules

What case is this from ?

AG ref no 6 of 1980

What does V generally consent to in sport ?

On the ball incidents, the game is ongoing

What case is this from ?

R v Billinghurst

What does V not consent to ?

Actions in the game ‘sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal’

What will the courts consider ?

Type of sport, level its played at, nature of the act, degree of force used

What case shows this ?

R v barnes

What is horseplay ?

Messing around/playflighting

What will the courts generally do ?

Seek a lack of intention

What can D be mistaken to ?

As to whether V consented (r v jones and another)

Is being fire deemed to allow consenting ?

Yes as confirmed in R v Aitken and others

What did r v donougn establish ?

The v can only consent up to battery

What does R v brown show ?

Can only consent up to battery, lord templemens judgement considered to have homophobia

What did R v Emmett state ?

Law applied equally to heterosexual relationships - no more than battery

What is the domestic abuse act 2021?

Consent to serious harm for sexual qualification is not defence

What do serious harms include ?

S47, S20, S18

EVALUATION: is there logical consistency in sport?

In sport suffiecnlty grave will not lead to consent repost even with R v Barnes guidelines

EVALUATION: is there logical consistency in medical cases ?

Consistent bc law is very clear you can’t have extreme body modification carried out by a non-medical pro for no medical benefit (r v bum)

EVALUATION: is there logical consistency in sex ?

P intervention conduesed law bc uses the term serious harm in domestic abuse act 2021 to mean ABH

EVALUATION: is there logical consistency in horseplay ?

Inconsistent bc people assume V must consent but D can be mistaken to this

EVALUATION: is there logical consistency ?

R v Browb - sadomasochism not accepted, not consistent with R v Wilson

R v Atken and others not consistent with R v Emmett, R v A accepted consent for fire but R v E didn’t