Consent Flashcards
Define consent
Where someone with adequate mental capacity voluntarily gives their permission to a particular act - this can be expressed of implied
What can consent be a defence to?
-Non-fatal offences against a person but never to murder
-Consensual killing (euthanasia) still murder
Is consent an actual defence?
-Case
-No, if the person has consented then there isn’t an offence
-In R v Donovan there was no battery as the person had consented
-D caned 17 year old girl for sexual gratification, caused bruising, convicted of assault. Appealed that V consented and conviction quashed.
What other case apart from R v Donovan showed that there is no offence if the person consented?
-R v Slingsby
-D charged v invol mans by unlawful act. Him and V ‘vigorous’ sexual activity but had consent. Signet ring caused small cuts to V and got blood poisoning she died, V’s consent meant no unlawful act of battery or assault. NG manslaughter as no unlawful act.
What can people not consent to?
-3 cases to illustrate
-An activity intended or likely to cause ABH or GBH
-R v Brown: HL decided that consent to injuries in the course of homo-sexual masochistic activities is no consent to ABH or GBH even tho all adult and no medical attention needed
-R v Wilson: D branded initials at wife’s request on her buttock w hot knife. Not unlawful even tho had to seek medical attention for burns. Not in public interest such consensual beh should be criminalised. Personal adornment like tatto
-R v BM: Tatooist, body modifications like removing nipple ear and splitting tongue. Wounding w intent. Consent no defence.
Genuine consent + case names
-The consent must be true and genuine. D appearing to consent may not be sufficient
-Fraud vitiate the consent if deceives the identity of DFT or nature and quality of act
-R v Tabassum
-R v Dica
-Richardson
-Melin
R v Tabassum
-D’s identity
-D pretended to be medically qualified so he could examine women’s breasts. Appealed against conv of indecent assault as said they consented
-Consent only given bc v misled into believing he was medically qualified. Fraud destroyed the consent
R v Dica
-Nature and quality of the act
-V consented to sex but didn’t know HIV-Positive so consent not valid as not consented to being infected with HIV so D guilty of offence under OAPA
-In R v Golding D recklessly infected with herpes
(Fraud) Richardson
-D suspended dentist carried out T on patients
-P’s consented assuming suitably qualified, wouldn’t have if knew disqualified
-Consent accepted here and D not guilty of assault
-case law on fraudulent medical examination and treatment not clear
R v Melin
-D injected Botox into 2 people twice. After 2nd injection both suffered serious harm
-P said only consented to the treatment as D said medically qualified when not
-Deception to identity capable of vitiating consent
What is implied consent?
-Courts imply consent to minor touches which could be seen as battery in some situations
-Eg if in crowd and impossible not to have some contact (Wilson v Pringle)
-eg supermarket, station platform, sports crowds and busy streets
Contact sports explanation
0Where people take part in sports like rugby, agree to contact that is part of sport
-If contact goes beyond what is allowed within the rules of that sport then there may be an offence
What are the two cases for contact sports?
-R v Moss: D rugby players and punched opposing playing in match, conviction GBH and sentenced to 6 months. Court said contact sport not license for thuggery
-R v Barnes: D caused serious injury when trying to slide tackle in football. Accepted that tackle was harsh but fair. Injury accidental
-Court said contact sports exception to the rule that consent no defence to bodily harm.
Consent to minor injuries explanation + case
-Confusion on this.
-Can consent to minor injuries like sports, horseplay and surgery but not to injuries above ABH
-AG’s ref no 6 1980: 2 young men agreed to fight in street after quarrel. Consent couldn’t be a defence as not in public interest
Consent to medical procedures
-Usually given by patient
-Surgeons no liability for what would be wounding or manslaughter if they died
-Consent can be denied as in Blaue
