consent

First argument

P - means daily activities aren’t unlawful

D - sets clear limitations to most of them except body adornments R v BM which may cause confusion for jury and judges and therefore cause different outcomes R v Wilson and R v Hodbay

D+ - applying factors of Barnes creates a good balance so that only those who deliberately inflict injury or go beyond the rules should be liable

D++ - development in common law can lead to inconsistency and may be more policy driven at times which raises the law and morality argument

Second argument

P - it interacts with law, society and morality

D - the exception of it not being a defence to an offence higher than battery raises issues of inconsistency Brown and Wilson

D+ - in Brown the decision seems to infringe civil liberties therefore dissenting minority in the House of Lords

Third argument

P - consent isn’t accepted for assisted suicide R(Nicklinson) v MOJ

D - Can be seen as unfair as it’s an infringement of civil liberties and the right to private life, family, home and correspondence under Article 8

D+ - in the EctHr Nicklinson v Uk held that the law fell under the margin of appreciation so perhaps the uk law of consent is out of sync with public views

Fourth point

P - case law can be inconsistent in terms of valid consent Richardson in contract to Dica

D - further arguments about the need for v to understand the nature and quality of the act Burrel v harmer, whilst the courts have developed the Gilik competence test for minors there is still the question of whether they actually understand what they’re consenting to

Reform point

P - proposed that consent to injury should be allowed unless it’s seriously disabling or risks death

D - seriously disabling was defined as ‘serious distress and involving the loss of limbs or serious/permanent injury’