Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Defence Of Consent > Consent > Flashcards

Consent Flashcards

1
Q

In what situations does consent obtained by fraud negate consent?

A

Where the victim is deceived as to the identity of the person and/or the nature and quality of the defendants act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What case is relevant to the victim being deceived about the identity of the person?

A

R v Richardson (1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the case of R v Richardson (1998) relevant to?

A

The victim being deceived about the identity of the person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In what year was the case of R v Richardson?

A

1998

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What case happened in 1998?

A

R v Richardson (1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happened in the case of R v Richardson (1998)?

A

Richardson was a dentist suspended from practice but carried on treating her patients

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was the outcome of R v Richardson (1998)?

A

She was convicted of ABH but her appeal was allowed because she had not informed them she was not qualified, she had not deceived them in any other way. They consented to to treatment from her, it is irrelevant that they might or might not have consented if they knew the truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What case is relevant to the victim being deceived about the nature and quality of the defendants act?

A

R v Tabassum (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the case of R v Tabassum (2000) relevant to?

A

The victim being deceived about the nature and quality of the defendants act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happened in the case of R v Tabassum (2000)?

A

He examined the breasts of several women telling them it was for medical research but was in fact doing it for his own enjoyment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the outcome of R v Tabassum (2000)?

A

His conviction under the sexual offences act 2003 was upheld as the women consented for medical purposes, they had been deceived about the quality of the act so had not really consented

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Does consent obtained by fraud negate consent?

A

Not always

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

In what case was the doctrine of informed consent created?

A

R v Dica (2004)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was created as a result of the case of R v Dica (2004)?

A

The doctrine of informed consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case happened in 2004?

A

R v Dica

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In what year was the case of R v Dica?

A

2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in the case of R v Dica (2004)?

A

The defendant knew he was HIV positive and had sex with two women who were unaware of this

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the outcome of R v Dica (2004)?

A

The court ruled that consenting to sex did not mean automatic consent to risk of injury or infection. He was convicted of s20 GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How have the courts attempted to balance when consent is given?

A

They have tried to establish when consent is given in certain scenarios.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is an example of consent in everyday life?

A

A person consents go assault and battery otherwise everyday life would be difficult e.g jostling on the tube

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is the cut off point for consent in everyday life?

A

Injuries from ABH upwards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What situations are exempt from the principle of consent of everyday life?

A

Contact sports, surgery, horseplay, tattooing and branding, sexual activity (but not sado-masochism), haircuts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How does consent work in contact sports?

A

The defendant consents to risk of injury but within the rules of the game

24
Q

What case is relevant to contact sports and consent?

A

R v Moss (2000)

25
Q

What is the case of R v Moss (2000) relevant to?

A

Contact sports and consent

26
Q

What case happened in 2000?

A

R v Moss

27
Q

In what year was the case of R v Moss?

A

2000

28
Q

What happened in the case of R v Moss (2000)?

A

The defendant punched the victim during the course of a rugby match and fractured his eye socket

29
Q

What was the outcome of R v Moss (2000)?

A

The defence was unavailable and the defendant was convicted of S20 GBH

30
Q

What is the debate surrounding horseplay?

A

It is a contentious issue because the law allows for the defence of consent for rough horse play but it may be perceived as bullying by others. Although courts say there should be a lack of intention but this is difficult to establish, particularly in children

31
Q

What case happened in 1987?

A

R v Jones and Others (1987)

32
Q

In what year was R v Jones and Others?

A

(1987)

33
Q

What is the case of R v Jones and Others (1987) relevant to?

A

Consent and horseplay

34
Q

What case is relevant to consent and horseplay?

A

R v Jones and Others (1987)

35
Q

What happened in the case of R v Jones and Others (1987)?

A

Some boys were injured being thrown in the air by school mates. One had a ruptured spleen and broken arm.

36
Q

What was the outcome of R v Jones and Others (1987)?

A

The defence of consent is allowed

37
Q

What case is relevant to tattooing and branding?

A

R v Wilson (1997)

38
Q

What is the case of R v Wilson (1997) relevant to?

A

Tattooing and branding

39
Q

What case happened in 1997?

A

R v Wilson

40
Q

What year was the case of R v Wilson?

A

1997

41
Q

What happened in the case of R v Wilson (1997)?

A

The defendants branded his wife with a hot butter knife

42
Q

What was the outcome of R v Wilson (1997)?

A

His conviction was quashed because she had consented and that branding was like bodily adornment, similar to a tattoo

43
Q

Explain consent and sexual activity…

A

Injury accidentally inflicted during sexual activity between consented adults is not assault, even if one dies

44
Q

What cases are related to sexual activity?

A

R v Slingsby (1995)

R v Brown (1994)

45
Q

What is the case of R v Slingsby (1995) relevant to?

A

Sexual activity

46
Q

In what year was the case of R v Slingsby?

A

1995

47
Q

What case happened in 1995?

A

R v Slingsby

48
Q

What happened in the case of R v Slingsby (1995)?

A

The victim and defendant had consenting sex and he accidentally scratched her with his signet ring. She suffered internal cuts and died from septicaemia

49
Q

What was the outcome of R v Slingsby (1995)?

A

The court held there was no assume as the victim consented, so the defendant was found not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

50
Q

What is the case of R v Brown (1994) relevant too?

A

The defence not being available during sado-masochism but the outcome being contentious

51
Q

What case happened in 1994?

A

R v Brown

52
Q

In what year was the case of R v Brown?

A

1994

53
Q

What happened in the case of R v Brown (1994)?

A

A group of gay men over a ten year period enthusiastically took part in acts of violence against each other for sexual pleasure. They all consented, no one went to the police, no one sought medical treatment or suffered permanent injury. The police discovered the activities by accident.

54
Q

What was the outcome of R v Brown (1994)?

A

They were charged with various offences under offences against the persons act 1861. They were convicted and their appeals were rejected

55
Q

What is the debate surrounding R v Brown (1994)?

A

Compared to the case of R v Slingsby it would appear this case was based on the judges beliefs. Precedent set by Brown should’ve been followed in Slingsby, the fact it was not has led to the the decision in Brown supposedly led by homophobia.

A2 Law - Defence Of Consent (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions