Case Studies: Defences in Criminal Law 2
- Created by: Alex.Byrne
- Created on: 27-05-18 15:58
View mindmap
- Case Studies: Defences in Criminal Law 2- Consent
- Burrell v Harmer (1967)
- D tattooed 2 boys aged 12 and 13. Boys consented.
- Held: boys' consent was ineffective since the court was of the opinion they were unable to comprehend the nature of the act
- D was liable for assault causing ABH under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisback Area Health Authority
- Sought a declaration that it would be unlawful for a Dr to prescribe contraceptives to girls under 16 without knowledge or consent of parent
- Mrs Gillick= mother of 5 daughters under 16
- Held: declaration refused
- Fraud
- Tabassum (2000)
- Intentional deception as to the purpose of the act
- Man with no qualifications examines 3 women under the pretense that he is conducting a study on breast cancer
- Tabassum (2000)
- R v Wilson (1996)
- Appellant branded his initials on wife's buttocks with hot knife. She had asked him to. Skin became infected and she sought medical treatment from Dr
- Dr reported matter to police and husband was charged with ABH under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Held: wife's consent was valid. Branding was more akin to tattooing rather than infliction of pain for sexual gratification
- R v Aitken (1992)
- They had done 2 officers and extinguished with no injury. The third officer sustained serious burns.
- Appellants were RAF officers. Celebrating finishing training, as a joke, they had set fire to officers wearing their fire resistant clothing
- Appellants court martialled and convicted of GBH under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Held: Appeal allowed. If officer consented or officers believe he consented it was open for the judge to find that no offence had been committed
- R v Brown (1993)
- Injuries were inflicted during consensual homosexual sadomasochist activities
- 5 appellants convicted on various counts of ABH and wounding under Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Judge ruled consent of V conferred no defence and the appellants thus pleaded guilty ad appealed
- Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure will not be valid
- Burrell v Harmer (1967)
Comments
No comments have yet been made