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 homo 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 vagina- 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 homo 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
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
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)
Comments
No comments have yet been made