Consent

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 22-02-16 12:21
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
We are seen to impliedly consent to inevitable physical contact that occurs as part of everyday life – only applies to assault and battery
1 of 15
Donovan (1934) and A’G’s Ref (1980)
consent is only a defence to assault and battery, and does not apply to ABH or GBH
2 of 15
A’G’s Ref (No 6 of 1980)
exceptions: Injuries sustained during properly conducted sports; Lawful chastisement; Reasonable surgical interference
3 of 15
Barnes (2004)
The tribunal of fact must objectively evaluate whether such conduct could reasonably be regarded as having been consented to by considering circum’s e.g. type of sport/level played at/nature of conduct/whether occurred during play or in heat of momen
4 of 15
Jones (1986)
Boys consensually throwing other boys in air-charges under s 20 quashed as consent was available because the boys were willing participants and did not intend to cause inj (boys being boys)
5 of 15
Aitken (1992)
Convictions under s 20 were quashed on basis that consent was available if the victim had consented, or if the defs had believed (whether reasonably or not) that the victim was consenting to their activities
6 of 15
Brown (1994)
(sado-masochistic **** men) consent not available for charges after inj’s amounting to ABH and GBH (stinging nettles and genitals-not permanent) where such injuries had been conflicted in sado-mas encounter (Lord Templeman: protect society against ‘a
7 of 15
Slingsby (1995)
Ring in ******- held: as the injuries had been caused as a result of consensual sexual activity between the parties, the def should not be criminally liable
8 of 15
Wilson (1997)
Husband branded initials on wife’s bum after refusing to tattoo on her breasts-conv’n under s 47 quashed-no diff between what husband did and effects of tattooing (and tattooing is legal)-consensual activity between husband and wife in privacy=not ma
9 of 15
Emmett (1999)
Hetero couple-sex with bag over head and pouring lighter fluid (4-6cm burns)-consent was not available as although consensual, injuries sustained were far worse than in Wilson¸ and shows no distinction between **** and hetero couples
10 of 15
Burrell v Harmer (1967)
Consent obtained from a minor is invalid
11 of 15
Richardson (1998)
Consent is invalid if it is obtained by fraud as to the identity of the def or fraud as to the nature and quality of the def’s act
12 of 15
Tabassum (2000)
Consent must be freely given and not the result of fraud
13 of 15
Dica (2004)
Although consenting to sexual intercourse did not equate to the risk of disease, a def would have a defence to s 20 if the victim did consent to the risk of an STD
14 of 15
Konzani (2005)
Informed consent would be a defence, i.e. where the victim, knowing of the risks of having unprotected sex with the def, consents to those risks
15 of 15

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

consent is only a defence to assault and battery, and does not apply to ABH or GBH

Back

Donovan (1934) and A’G’s Ref (1980)

Card 3

Front

exceptions: Injuries sustained during properly conducted sports; Lawful chastisement; Reasonable surgical interference

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The tribunal of fact must objectively evaluate whether such conduct could reasonably be regarded as having been consented to by considering circum’s e.g. type of sport/level played at/nature of conduct/whether occurred during play or in heat of momen

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Boys consensually throwing other boys in air-charges under s 20 quashed as consent was available because the boys were willing participants and did not intend to cause inj (boys being boys)

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »