OAPA III Flashcards
What does the Basic Rule state about consent to bodily harm in the context of English law?
The Basic Rule posits that while consent can be given for assault or battery, it cannot extend to Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) or more severe harm unless it falls within legally recognized exemptions.
What case emphasized the limited scope for consent in cases of assault or battery?
Collins v Wilcock [1984] emphasized the limited scope for consent in cases of assault or battery, delineating boundaries for lawful touch.
What did AG’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) [1981] state about consent as a defence for ABH?
AG’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) [1981] stated that consent is not a defence for ABH or more serious injuries unless exceptions apply.
How did R v Brown [1994] impact the acceptance of consent in activities causing injury?
R v Brown [1994] asserted that consent is invalid for ABH or worse harm in sadomasochistic activities, setting a precedent for non-acceptance of consent in activities causing injury.
What case established that public bare-knuckle fights are unlawful, even with consent?
R v Coney (1882) established that public bare-knuckle fights are unlawful, even with consent.
Which cases highlighted circumstances under which rough horseplay might not attract criminal liability?
R v Jones (1986) and R v Aitken [1992] highlighted circumstances under which rough horseplay might not attract criminal liability, emphasizing the role of genuine consent.
What case further explored the nuances of consent in the context of horseplay and fighting?
R v A [2005] further explored the nuances of consent in the context of horseplay and fighting.
How does R v Barnes [2004] relate to sports-related injuries and consent?
Illustrated that sports-related injuries can be exempt if occurring within the rules and spirit of the game.
What is the significance of R v Bradshaw (1878) in the context of consent and sports?
Early case recognizing consent inherent in sports, with lawful sports activities exceptions to assault charges.
How do cases like R v Brown [1994] and R v Wilson [1997] reflect the courts’ stance on consent in sadomasochistic practices?
These cases show the courts’ reluctance to accept consent as a defence in cases of intentional harm through sadomasochistic practices.
What did R v Slingsby [1995] and R v Meachen [2006] discuss regarding sexual activity?
Discussed accidental harm in sexual contexts, highlighting different considerations for consent.
How do R v Dica [2004] and R v Konzani [2005] impact the legal view on transmitting sexual diseases?
Emphasized the criminality of recklessly transmitting sexual diseases, with consent and knowledge being key factors.
What does R v Wilson and R v BM [2018] suggest about consent in tattooing and body modification?
It shows some acceptance of consent in the context of body modification, contrasting with the stance in R v Brown regarding tattooing and piercing.
What is the significance of S. 71 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in the context of consent and harm?
Codifies the principle set out in the case of R v Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556. Thus, a defendant will be unable to rely on a victim’s consent to the infliction of such harm as part of any so-called ‘rough sex’ defence and will remain liable to prosecution for ABH or GBH.
How does R v Melin [2019] contribute to the understanding of consent obtained by fraud?
Highlighted that it would be undesirable for the law to treat all false or fraudulent representations as vitiating consent.
(Made exceptions for i.e., ..)
