Consent can never be a defence to murder (Pretty) or S18 (Leach)
Slingsby- V consented to the battery, was unlawful as V had consented.
General principles regarding consent
Capacity to consent
Gillick- A young person can consent if they are 'Gillick competent'- they must have sufficient intelligence and understanding of what they are consenting to.
Tabassum- Wasn't true/genuine consent, no consent to indecent behaviour from D. Olugbuja- Submission through fear is not real consent.
Dica- Didn't know D was HIV positive; wouldn't have consented if they knew.
Implied consent-Wilson v Pringle- 'everyday jostlings'
The scope of consent as a defence
AG Ref (No 6 of 1980)- Consent will not be a defence to S47- not in public interest etc. Exceptions- Fighting (properly conducted games/sports), surgery, lawful correction, dangerous exhibitions.
Brown and others- Additional lawful activities- tattooing, piercing, male circumcision, violent sports.
Barnes- a sports player implies consent. Only prosecute cases where conduct is serious enough to be called 'criminal', eg intending/reckless about causing injury, or causing injury outside the game rules.
Jones- V's consent (or D's honest belief that V had consented) to 'rough and undisciplined horseplay' could provide a defence as long as there was no intention to cause injury.
Aitken- V can consent to a risk of accidental injury in rough undisciplined play. If D honestly yet mistakenly believed that V had consented, that too would be a defence.
Sexual activity- Slingsby- V consented so no offence to base UAM conviction.
Tattooing and branding- Wilson- 'Personal adornment'- branding compared to tattooing which was listed as an exception in Brown. D not guilty.