Evaluation of the defence of consent

The law on consent is fair in regards to sports.

• doesn’t allow consent to deliberate or reckless injuries, or injuries that have occurred infringing the rules of the game - R v Billingshurst

  • this is just for the victim and aligns with public interest

• where injury is beyond what a player could reasonably have consented to by participating then there is no consent - R v Barnes

• it is also fair towards D as won’t be found guilty even where serious injury is inflicted if they didn’t intend to cause the serious harm - R v Jones

• however it could be argued that it is unfair to allow consent to “rough horseplay” especially where it may include bullying like in R v Aitken

The law can be inconsistent in regards to genuine consent

• consent allowed in Aitken not Brown, even tho it can be argued that there was more ‘genuine consent’ in the latter

  • although it can be argued that this was on public policy grounds

• The same can be said in Richardson and in Dica, no more genuine consent in Richardson than in Dica however it was allowed in the former

• These inconsistencies can make it difficult for the law to be understood, in turn contrasting the rule of law which states that the law should be clear

Decisions based on morality balance public policy with principle

• In Brown it can be said that refusing consent restricts personal freedom as activities were consensual

  • however the law argues that the actions were immoral and states that no one should be able to inflict harm w/o ‘good reason’

• it can be said that in Wilson a similar sexually related injury was caused but this was classed as tattooing

  • this is unfair on the defendant in Brown

• the contest between these two cases can be said to create inconsistencies in the law and can also be argued to be unjust, even though the law is trying to create a balance between policy and principle

Consent is fit for purpose in regards to medical procedures

• surgery is required to save life or benefit health

• surgery can occur without consent if necessary to save Vs life and no-one can consent on their behalf

• anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment - Blaue

• However there are complications with consenting to medical procedures in regards to body modification

  • R v BM, held that body modifications couldn’t be consented to

  • but you can consent to beauty procedures like botox (Melin) and other facial enhancements

  • it can be said that this creates unfairness on someone that wants to get body modifications however legally would be unable to consent

Consent and euthanasia

• nobody can consent to another person brining about their death, however law recognises that people are able to take their own lives

• Pretty v UK

• This is unjust and conflicts public interest especially where someone is unable to take their own life without aid from another