consent

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Rebeka188
  • Created on: 13-04-16 23:07
View mindmap
  • Consent
    • Applying or threatening to apply force to the person of another does not form the subject-matter of assault or battery if it is consented to. subject to three qualifications
      • Lack of consent is an element in the actus reus of common assault:     Collins v Willcock
        • what is consent? Dunn LJ in Olugboja: it is to be given its ordinary meaning and in need an example that there is a difference between consent and submission
    • Consent must be effective
      • 2. the consent must be freely given and not vitiated by fraud;
        • As to the nature and purpose of the act 
          • Williams: guilty of rape, her singing would improve if he would suck his dic
            • Flattery:  a vitim submited to an intercourse believing to be a surgical operation 
        • As to the person (identity not attributes) 
          • Richardson: consent to dental surgery was effective although the dentist had been struck off and had misrepresented his qualifications: mistake only as to expertise or status
            • R v Elbekkay CA: she had sex with a guy she thought it was her boyfriend, soon she realized he wasn't CA held this was a rape
        • Consent is not vitiated simply because the victim would not have consented had she knew the true state of affairs (Clarence)
          • Bolduc v Bird:  deceived into believing that a witness to her medical examination was a medical student when in reality it was a friend of the doctor, Court said she still consented: the conctact the victim consented to (medical examination) was the contact she got
          • Tabassun: engaging in medical research in breast cancer examined women  breasts, charged with indecent assault, held that he was misrepresenting the nature and purpose of the act: indicated that Bolduc v Bird might be in the past  
      • 1. the person concerned must have the legal capacity to give consent;
        • Burrell v Harmer: boys too young to consent to tatoo, assault occasioning actual bodily harm upheld
  • Consent is not a defence to activities intended to cause harm unless the activities form a special public interest exception
    • A-G’s Reference (no 6 of 1980), fist fights   resulting in ABH or greater harm irrespective of whether they are conducted in public or private
    • consensual sexual relations involving intentional or foreseen infliction of physical harm are unlawful
      •  Donovan: beat a prostitute with a cane
        • Brown:  sado-masochicstic sexual activity between consenting males (orgy)  held(3:2) unlawful,
          • Emmett:  unmarried couple engaged in burning and suffocation, unlawful
      • difference if physical harm is incidental and not inflicted for its own sake
        • Slingsby: fist in anus with a ring 
          • Wilson: : wife’s consent was valid. The branding was more akin to tattooing and cosmetic enhancement rather than infliction of pain for sexual gratification.  

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all crim resources »