consent Flashcards
what is consent?
a full defence which makes an unlawful act lawful.
r v Donovan
sexual assault with cane. he appealed and said V consented and conviction was quashed.
r v slingsby
involuntary manslaughter by unlawful act. cuts by signet ring caused blood poisoning.V consented to sexual act so his conviction was quashed
real consent
understanding nature of act
true consent
understanding the quality of the act
informed consent
knowing all of the information
Burrell v Harmer (real)
12&13 year old boys consented to being tattooed. not real as unable to comprehend nature of the act
Gillick(real)
16 year old wanted contraception, mother wouldn’t allow
gillick competence
sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed
r v tabassam (true)
pretended to be doctor, inspected breasts, they consented but not true as he wasn’t a doctor
r v richardson (true)
the dentist who at the time of performance was suspended.
r v olugboja (true)
can’t consent through fear or coersion
r v dica (fmd)
HIV positive he knew girl didn’t, she didn’t consent
r v konzani (fmd)
HIV to three woman, consented to sex not to disease
r v golding (fmd)
gave partner herpes she didn’t consent to being infected.
minor injuries (att ref no 6 of 1980
not in society interest to cause harm unless for a recognised good reason.
wilson v pringle (imp)
josslings of everyday life
example: holding hands, high five
r v thomas
touching someones clothes is the same as touching them.
exception to att ref no 6 1980
surgery sport horseplay euthanasia personal adornment
r v barnes(sport)
not consent if what occurs goes beyond the rules of the sport.
r v billinghurst & r v johnson (sport)
if conduct lies outside the rules of the sport-not consent
intentional infliction of injury will always be criminal
factors to consider for sport
level of ability from player
normal play/flash of anger
“off the ball”
horseplay
“friendly” violence or “honest belief of consent”
r v jones (hp)
had a genuine belief of consent. doesn’t need to be a reasonable belief as long as its genuine.
r v aitken (hp)
officers did practical joke, 1 officer sustained serious burns but had a genuine belief in consent.
r v brown (pa)
5 men-sexual acts. consent was given, was in private, no ,medical attention needed..
BUT convicted s47 & s20
r v wilson (pa)
branded his wife, she needed medical attention. not guilty-not in public interest to criminalise such private consensual behaviour.
r v Emmett (pa)
high risk sexual activity, needed medical attention.
consent should apply, serious harm couldn’t be consented to if “transient & trivial”.
ruling in r v brown (pa)
there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty.
Euthanasia
a person consents to another taking their life, if assists the person in taking their own life they would be guilty of assisting suicide, s2 suicide act- r v gilderdale
r v pretty(eu)
wanted assistance from husband, asked for him to not be prosecuted. Refused, judicial review against human rights (right to life) BUT no corresponding right to die
airedale(eu)
vegetative state for 3 years, requested to stop giving life, “an omission of treatment not unlawful”
r v inglis(eu)
mother gave lethal dose of heroin to vegetative son to kill as she believed him to be in pain. murder. “active termination of life is unlawful”
