Consent

Question 1

R v Clarence

Answer 1

Consent generally considered valid where the apparent victim is aware of the nature of the act and the identity of the defendant, even if other information is withheld (No longer good law following R v Dica and R v Tabassum)

Question 2

R v Tabassum

Answer 2

Consent is not valid in cases where the individual is aware of the nature of the act and the identity of the defendant, but is deceived as to the quality of the act

Question 3

R v Richardson

Answer 3

Consent is not valid where the identity of the participants is unknown

Question 4

R v Dica, R v Konzani

Answer 4

If a person knows that they have HIV, and recklessly transmits it through consensual sexual intercourse to a person who is ignorant of the risk of HIV, consent will not be a defence to a s.20 charge

Question 5

R v Jones, R v Aitkin

Answer 5

Horseplay can be invoked as a consent-based defence

Question 6

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980)

Answer 6

Consent can be a defence to an assault which causes harm in the course of lawful activities including:
• Surgical operations
• Dangerous exhibitions (e.g. circus acts)
• Properly conducted sports

Question 7

R v Barnes

Answer 7

In sport cases, conduct must be sufficiently grave and outside the rules of the sport to be considered criminal

Question 8

R v Brown (1994)

Answer 8

Certain activities involving consent to ABH are valid on public interest grounds, such as:
• Ritual circumcision
• Tattooing
• Ear piercing
However, consent was held not to be a defence to ss47 and 20 OAPA 1861 in the context of ‘sado-masochistic encounters’, followed in R v Emmett

Question 9

R v Wilson

Answer 9

Held that there was public interest reason to allow husband to brand his wife with a hot knife, on basis of consent