Consent
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 03-06-14 15:00
View mindmap
- Consent
- what is consent?
- may be a defence to battery and other offences against the person
- never a defence to murder or situations where serious injury is caused
- where other person consents to being touched there is no battery due to no unlawful touching
- Donovan (1934) - canned girl for sexual gratification causing bruising
- conviction for common assault and indecent assault quashed as consent given
- Donovan (1934) - canned girl for sexual gratification causing bruising
- consent must be real
- Tabassum (2000) - D measured women's breasts saying making medical database
- women consented thinking D medically qualified or training
- committed battery - women only consented to medical examination
- consent cannot be induced by fear
- Clarence (1888) - D had sex with wife and gave her sexually transmitted disease
- even though disease unknown to wife, no offence as wife deemed to consent to sex with husband
- Olugboja (1982) - V already ***** by D's companion and had seen D **** another woman so allowed him to have sex with her.
- D held that this meant real consent
- CA held that there is a crucial difference between real consent and mere submission
- Clarence (1888) - D had sex with wife and gave her sexually transmitted disease
- Dica (2004) - D infected 2 women with HIV after unprotected sex. D did not tell them he was HIV positive
- D committed offence as women did not give real consent
- overruled previous decision in Clarence (1888)
- Tabassum (2000) - D measured women's breasts saying making medical database
- consent can be implied for the reality of everyday life
- Wilson v Pringle (1987) - held that ordinary 'jostling's' of everyday life were not battery
- no one can complain about the jostling's on the underground
- can be implied consent for contact sports within the rules of the game
- Barnes (2004) - made late tackle on player during amateur game leading to serious injury
- conviction was quashed as not grave enough to be criminal
- Barnes (2004) - made late tackle on player during amateur game leading to serious injury
- Wilson v Pringle (1987) - held that ordinary 'jostling's' of everyday life were not battery
- consent can be given for minor injuries, with limits set by public policy
- AG Reference (NO 6 of 1980) (1981) - two men agreed to fight in street to settle their differences
- CA held that consent could not be a defence to street fighting as it was not in the public interest
- now accepted consent not available to s.47 unless...
- properly conducted games and sports
- lawful chastisement or correction
- reasonable surgical interference
- dangerous exhibitions
- court added 'etc' so that it may be able to cover new situations in the future
- limits to consent
- Brown (1993) - HL held that consent not a defence to sado-masochistic acts done by homosexuals
- All V's had consented and none needed medical attention
- no consent based on public policy
- Wilson (1996) - D branded wife's buttocks with his initials. she needed medical attention
- no offence as she asked him to do it
- case not in public - like having tattoo
- Brown (1993) - HL held that consent not a defence to sado-masochistic acts done by homosexuals
- AG Reference (NO 6 of 1980) (1981) - two men agreed to fight in street to settle their differences
- can be an honest mistake as to a belief in consent
- Jones (1986) - two boys tossed into air by older brother's. suffered broken arms and ruptured spleens
- conviction quashed by CA
- held that a genuine mistaken belief in consent to ‘rough and undisciplined horseplay’ could be a defence, even if the belief was unreasonable.
- Aitken (1992) - RAF officers poured white spirit over drunk and sleeping friend wearing fire-resistant flying suit who suffered major burns
- conviction for s.20 quashed as the mistaken belief in the V's consent should have been left to the jury
- Jones (1986) - two boys tossed into air by older brother's. suffered broken arms and ruptured spleens
- extent of consent
- Emmett (1999) - D and GF had sex which resulted in hemorrhage to GF's eye and burns on breast
- CA upheld D's conviction as harm caused more than transient or trivial
- Emmett (1999) - D and GF had sex which resulted in hemorrhage to GF's eye and burns on breast
- what is consent?
Comments
No comments have yet been made