consent
- 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
-
Lack of
consent is an element in the actus reus of common assault: Collins v Willcock
-
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 ****, her singing would improve if he would **** his dic
- Flattery: a vitim submited to an intercourse believing to be a surgical operation
- Williams: guilty of ****, her singing would improve if he would **** his dic
-
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 ****
-
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
-
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
-
As to the nature
and purpose of the act
- 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
- 2. the consent must be freely given and not vitiated by fraud;
- 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
-
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 (****) held(3:2)
unlawful,
- Emmett: unmarried couple engaged in burning and suffocation, unlawful
-
Brown:
sado-masochicstic sexual activity between
consenting males (****) held(3:2)
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.
-
Slingsby: fist in anus with a ring
-
Donovan: beat a prostitute with a cane
Comments
No comments have yet been made