Defences to non-fatal, non-sexual OAPA; Lawful Chastisement/ Consent Flashcards
what are the 2 defences to non fatal non sexual OAPA offences
-lawful chastisement
-consent
where is the law for lawful chastisement found
-s.58 Children Act 2004
what is the defence of legal chastisement
-s.58 Children Act 2004
-reasonable and proportionaate chastisement may be a defence for assault and battery only
explain the defence of consent and the 2 cases relating to it
-there is consent to everyday assault and battery
-anything more than assault/battery requires V’s capacity
-Re MB (an adult)(1997); adults have capacity unless they have a disability/ learning difficulties rendering otherwise
-Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech; youth may negate capacity depending on age
what happened/ is the legal principle in Re MB (an adult)(1997)
-adults have capacity unless they have a disability / learning difficulties rendering otherwise
what happened/ is the legal principle in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech
-youth may negate capacity depending on age
what are the 7 parts of consent
(i) sex
(ii) sado-masochism
(iii) transmission
(iv) sport
(v) horseplay
(vi) surgery
(vii) body-mod
give 3 cases/ legal principles regarding (i) sex
-R v Meachen; if consent to battery develops to more serious injury, there is still consent ( broom in anus)
-UNLESS develops into ABH
-R v Boyea; even if V consents to assault/battery, D can be liable for any ABH which unintentionally results (eg R v Slingsby; D cut V with ring during penetration that got infected)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Meachen
-if consent to battery develops to more serious injury, there is still consent -broom in anus
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Boyea and R v Slingsby
- R v Boyea; even if V consents to assault/battery, D can be liable for any ABH which unintentionally results
-eg R v Slingsby; D cut V with ring during penetration that got infected
give 3 cases/legal principles relating to (ii) sado-masochism
-R v Brown; homo torture, 2 AIDs deaths charged ss.47 and 20 as consent was no defence
-R v Wilson; branded initials on butt ruled equivalent to tattoo, s.47 quashed consent respected
-Emmett(1999); R v Brown applied, s.47 conv for setting tits on fire
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Brown
-homo torture, 2 AIDs deaths charged ss.47 and 20 as consent was no defence
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Wilson
-branded initials on butt ruled equivalent to tattoo, s.47 quashed consent respected
what happened/ is the legal principle in Emmett (1999)
-R v Brown applied, s.47 conv for setting tits on fire
give 4 cases explaining (iii) transmission of disease
-R v Dica and R v Konzani; transmission where D does not have actual knowledge of it is s.20 (with intent= rare but s.18 (Rowe))
-Judge LJ in Konzani says social interactions can produce informed consent eg finding out from 3rd party eg doctor, nurse
-R v Adaye; D warned by doctor to test for HIV but D didnt, V infected and D pleaded guilty as it was highly likely despite no actual knowledge
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Dica and R v Konzani
-R v Dica and R v Konzani; transmission where D does not have actual knowledge of it is s.20
-Judge LJ in Konzani says social interactions can produce informed consent eg finding out from 3rd party eg doctor, nurse
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Adaye
- D warned by doctor to test for HIV but D didnt, V infected and D pleaded guilty as it was highly likely despite no actual knowledge
what happened/ is the legal principle in Rowe
- transmission with intent= rare but s.18
give 2 cases/ legal principles regarding (iv) sport
-generally V consents to whatever rules permit eg boxing consents to GBH unless D intentionally inflicts harm beyond what rules allow
-R v Bradshaw;V died after football tackle, D acquitted as no malicious intention
-R v Barnes; CA held all relevant circumstances considered eg type of sport, level played, nature of act, D’s mind
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Bradshaw
-V died after football tackle, D acquitted as no malicious intention
what happened/ is the legal principle behind R v Barnes
CA held all relevant circumstances considered eg type of sport, level played, nature of act, D’s mind
give 4 cases and legal principles relating to (v) horseplay
-consent between children to rough play may negate recklessness if there is no intent to injure
-Jones (1987); Ds threw D in air and didnt catch him, conv quashed bc consent to horseplay
-R v Aitken; RAF officers celebrated by setting ppl in fire resistent clothes on fire, 2 were uninjured but 3rd time had serious burns, conv quashed
-R v A(2005);D dropped struggling non swimmer V into river, drowned, no horseplay conv manslaughter
what happened/ is the legal principle in Jones (1987)
-Ds threw D in air and didnt catch him, conv quashed bc consent to horseplay
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Aitken
RAF officers celebrated by setting ppl in fire resistent clothes on fire, 2 were uninjured but 3rd time had serious burns, conv quashed
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v A (2005)
-D dropped struggling non swimmer V into river, drowned, no horseplay conv manslaughter
give 2 cases /legal principles relating to (vi) surgery
-Corbett v Corbett; consent to sex change, extends principle to cosmetic surgery and organ transplant
-St George’s Healthcare; if sane adult refuses consent to treatment, failure to respect that results in criminal liability for offence even if surgery is life preserving
what happened/is the legal principle in Corbett v Corbett
consent to sex change, extends principle to cosmetic surgery and organ transplant
what happened/is the legal principle in St George’s Healthcare
- if sane adult refuses consent to treatment, failure to respect that results in criminal liability for offence even if surgery is life preserving
give 3 cases/ legal principles relating to (vii) body mods
-haircuts are legal unless no consent eg DPP v Smith
-piercings and tattoos are assumed to be lawful (Wilson, bum branding)
-R v BM; tattooist removed ear/ nipple for body mod convicted of s.18 as consent was legally inoperative for that type of body mod (CA held it was akin to illegal surgery)
what happened/is the legal principle in DPP v Smith
-haircuts are legal unless no consent
-D cut ex girlfiends hair
what happened/is the legal principle in Wilson
-piercings and tattoos are assumed to be lawful
-bum branded with initials
what happened/is the legal principle in R v BM
-tattooist removed ear/ nipple for body mod
-convicted of s.18 as consent was legally inoperative for that type of body mod
-CA held it was akin to illegal surgery
