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 ****, her singing would improve if he would **** 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 ****
        • 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 (****)  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.  


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all crim resources »