Hate crime and consent

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/8

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

9 Terms

1
New cards

Hate crime definition:

‘any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’

2
New cards

Babbs 2007:

  • D racist to V in a shop

  • Situation diffused

  • 15 mins later, D headbutted V

  • Convicted of racist hate crime

3
New cards

Pal 2000:

  • D & V both asian

  • D ejected from community centre by V

  • Called V a ‘white mans arse licker’ & attacked him

  • Convicted but on appeal it was held it wasn’t racially aggravated as his remarks were motivated by anger

  • The remark wasn’t aimed at racial group, but to his relationship with white people

4
New cards

Cain v CPS 2022:

  • D black, V black police officer

  • V arrested another black man

  • Said ‘this N word abusing his own kind’

  • Arrested, but D said in black community n-word isn’t malicious

  • Conviction still upheld

5
New cards

Religious and racially aggravated offence PQ:

  • Identify basic offence

  • Discuss fault element, AR/MR

  • Identify if there was a demonstration of hostility s28(11)(a)

  • If not, identify whether offence was motivated by hostility s28(1)(b)

  • If either 28(1)(a) or 28(1)(b) apply, iy can be prosecuted as an aggravated offence against the person

6
New cards

Consent to non-fatal OAP, R v Brown:

  • Group involved in sado-masochistic encounters

  • Everyone consented

  • Videoed and police found video

  • 5 men charged with s47 & 20

  • Pleaded guilty but appealed conviction due to consent

  • Judgement: once we get to a level of bodilt harm, consent doesn’t matter. No exception created as there’s no good reason

    • Criticised, law shouldn’t interfere with consent. No medical needed, no serious harm so why??

7
New cards

Wilson 1996:

  • Husband burned initials into wife’s arm

  • Got infected & medical intervention was needed

  • Wilson convicted but released

  • Not in public interest such that consensual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of the matrimonial home should be a matter for criminal investigation or prosecution under 47

8
New cards

Exceptional categories where no liability is due:

  • Surgery

  • Tattoo/piercing (BM 2018 bodily modifications not included)

  • Sport

  • Horseplay (consent to risk of injury, Aitken 1992)

  • Religious flagellation

  • Circumcision

  • Sexual/reckless transmission of a disease; NOT intentional transmission (Dica 2024, Konzani 2005)

9
New cards