Consent

Question 0

What did R v Slingsby [1995] establish?

Answer 0

That there need not be a battery required, v had consented to touching so force applied wasn’t unlawful - he was charged with unlawful act manslaughter but there was no evidence to suggest that the V did not consent to the fist entering her vagina causing her death - blood infection

Question 1

It’s never a defence to?

Answer 1

Murder - pretty v Uk (2002) woman dying of motor neurone disease and wanting to know her husband wouldn’t be charged with murder, refused
S18 OAPA - r v leach (1969)
Defence unavailable because serious injury and no social benefit from the activity - crucifixion

Question 2

Gillick competence

Answer 2

A young person can’t consent if they are not Gillick Competant meaning they need sufficient intelligence and understanding of the nature and consequences to what they’re consenting to

Question 3

Consent must be true?

Answer 3

R v tabassum [2000] consent doesn’t exist if they’re consenting to something different than what is being done - three accounts of indicent assault - told complainants he worked for hops and compiling database for breast cancer

Question 4

Consent must be informed

Answer 4

R v dica [2004] - establishes this

Implied consent - everyday jostlings e.g party/public transport

Question 5

AGF : consent generally won’t be a defence to s47- not in publics interest to cause others injury for no reason

Answer 5

Fights are unlawful regardless of consent. Public policy issue, not in the publics interest to cause or try to cause each other actual bodily harm: per Lord lane:
Exceptions:
Surgery/ dangerous exhibitions
Recognised exceptions (brown)
- piercings, branding/ tattoos, circumcisions

Question 6

R v Barnes

Answer 6

Criminal prosecution must be reserved for cases where Ds conduct was serious enough to be called criminal

• intentional infliction of injury (criminal)
• reckless infliction (depends)
• ‘off the ball’ injury (most likely crim)
• injury occurred within rules and practice of a game (probably not crim)

Question 7

R v jones and others [1987]

Answer 7

No intention to cause injury so v’s consent could be used as a defence - should be allowed to use the defence if the d’s had a genuine belief in consent for horseplay

Question 8

R v wilson [1996]

Answer 8

Marriages consensual branding - husband branded her with hot knife on her buttocks and it became infected - doctor alarmed police and he was charged with s47 - consent was allowed - privacy in the matrimonial home was not for the courts