Consent Flashcards
1
Q
R v Donovan
A
- D caned a girl for sexual gratification, causing her some discomfort.
- “Definition of Consent”
- An act is not simply lawful just because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it.
2
Q
A-G Ref. No. 6 of 1980
A
- There was a street fight between two consenting adults.
- “Coverage of Defence”
- There was no consent, based on public policy considerations.
3
Q
R v Slingsby
A
- D fisted V’s vagina with her consent. His signet ring caused internal bleeding and V died.
- “Coverage of Defence”
- Consent can be defence for manslaughter but not murder.
4
Q
Burrell v Harmer
A
- D caused injury to two boy s of 12 and 13 by tattooing them.
- “Real Consent”
- Where V consents but is unable to appreciate the nature of the act, this is not real consent.
5
Q
R v Clarence
A
- D infected his wife with an STD during unprotected consensual sex.
- “Real Consent”
- There was no offence as the wife consented to sex with her husband.
6
Q
R v Dica
A
- D infected V’s with HIV during unprotected consensual sex.
- “Real Consent”
- While the V’s consented to sex, they didn’t consent to HIV, overruling Clarence.
7
Q
R v Billinghurst
A
- D punched another player during a rugby match, fracturing his jaw.
- “Consent in Sport”
- Rugby players consent to a degree of force, during a match, but they do not consent to being punched.
8
Q
R v Jones
A
- D’s gave another boy ‘birthday bumps’ and tossed him in the air, injuring him.
- “Consent in Horse-Play”
- D’s belief in V’s consent in rough horse-play was sufficient for a defence against a charge of GBH.
9
Q
R v Aitkin
A
- During an RAF initiation ceremony, V’s flameproof overalls were set on fire.
- Consent in “Horse-Play”
- V can give consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough, undisciplined play.
10
Q
R v Coney
A
- Spectators at a prizefight were charged with aiding and abetting.
- “Consent and Fighting”
- D’s were convicted since prize-fighting is illegal, and the fighters’ consent to injury provided no excuse.
11
Q
R v Brown and Others
A
- Homosexual sadomasochists were charged and convicted with S47 and S20 offences, despite consent of the victims.
- “Consent and Sexual Activity”
- The acts were simply violence masked as sexual activity and against public policy.
12
Q
R v Richardson
A
- A suspended dentist continued to practice.
- “Consent and Fraud”
- D’s identity was a dentist, albeit a suspended dentist, and therefore there was no fraud as to identity.
13
Q
R v Tabassum
A
- Several women’s breasts were examined by D who claimed to be carrying out cancer research.
- “Consent and Fraud”
- The consent was obtained through fraud as D had no medical training - V’s consented to the act, but not to its quality.
14
Q
R v BM
A
- A tattooist added ‘body modifications’ to his list of services and was charged with three offences under S18, having removed one customer’s ear, and carried out the division of a customer’s tongue to replicate a reptile.
- “Consent and Body Modification”
- While the customer consented, the CofA stated that personal autonomy provided no justification in the three cases that BM should not be placed in the special category.
- Allowed consent as a defence where D inflicts an injury of ABH or above.
15
Q
R v Emmett
A
- D performed ‘high risk’ sexual activity on his partner, leading D to be charged with ABH - V had to consult doctor on both occasions.
- “Consent and Sexual Activity”
- CofA held consent to injury was not enough for defence as harm was more than ‘transient or trivial’.
