Consent and Offences Against the Person

Question 1

Williams (1923)

Answer 1

Choir master deceived girl into believing that he was performing a medical procedure when he was in fact having sex with her, deceived her as to the nature of the act, consent vitiated so it was rape.

Question 2

Linekar (1995)

Answer 2

Defendant promised to pay a prostitute for sex but actually didn’t intend to, no deception as to the nature of the act or the identity of the defendant, consent was genuine.

Question 3

Richardson (Diana) (1998)

Answer 3

Defendant was a dentist who had been suspended from practicing but continued to work, consent not vitiated. Narrow view taken, must be deceit as to the nature of the act, not quality/attributes of it.

Question 4

Elbekkay (1995)

Answer 4

D had sex with V knowing that she mistakenly thought he was her boyfriend. Fraud as to identity, consent was vitiated.

Question 5

Tabassum (2000)

Answer 5

D examined womens breasts under the pretence that it was for cancer research, held that deceit as to quality of the act was enough to vitiate consent, reversed Richardson decision.

Question 6

Dica (2004)

Answer 6

D was HIV+ and had sex with 2 women, giving them the disease. Held they had consented to the sex, they just hadn’t consented to the risk of getting HIV (In Canada they decided that consent to sex can be vitiated by not disclosing HIV+ status)

Question 7

Konzani (2005)

Answer 7

Held that someone only consents to the risk of catching HIV if they know their partner is HIV+.

Question 8

Brown (1994)

Answer 8

Consensual violence criminalised where more than trivial injuries are caused, unless in the context of one of the lawful public interest exceptions, for example; surgery, piercings, organised sports

Question 9

Donovan (1934)

Answer 9

D caned a girl for sexual gratification, held that generally hitting someone with enough force to cause bodily harm should be criminal, especially if done for sexual gratification.

Question 10

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 1980)

Answer 10

Two men consented to a fist fight, held that once the level of harm reaches ABH it is an offence contrary to OAPA despite consent. There would be no public interest in fist fights being legal.

Question 11

Jones (Terrence) (1987)

Answer 11

“Rough and undisciplined” playground games injured victims, court held list of lawful exceptions wasn’t conclusive, added rough horseplay to the list as long as the relevant injury wasn’t intended.

Question 12

Aitken (1992)

Answer 12

RAF men set fire to their friend’s fight suit while he was sleeping, caused very serious burns, undisciplined mess games added to list of lawful exceptions.

Question 13

Williams (Alan) (1996)

Answer 13

D branded wife’s buttocks, held that this was analogous to tattooing so consent was relevant.

Question 14

Richardson and Irwin (1999)

Answer 14

Drunken university students pushed friend from balcony, counted as horseplay even though their belief in their friend’s consent was mistaken.

Question 15

Barnes (2005)

Answer 15

Objective threshold of criminality dependant on: the type of sport, the level at which it was played, the nature of the act, the degree of force used, the extent of the injury and the state of mind of the defendant.

Question 16

Clarence (1888)

Answer 16

Husband contracted gonnorreah and gave it to his wife, consent not vitiated, fraud only vitiates consent if it relates to (a) the nature of the act or (b) the identity of the person.