Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What does or can the defence of consent do? How does the defence operate? Give a case example.
|
The defence of consent negates some offences against the person. Technically, it is not a defence as, where there is consent, there is no offence. For instance, in R v Donovan, D caned V for purposes of sexual gratification, which V consented to. D's conviction for s.47 was therefore quashed as with V's consent there had been no battery.
|
|
|
What must there be for the defence to run? Give a case example.
|
There must be real consent for the defence to run. For example, in Tabassum, D measured women's breasts claiming he was compiling a medical database. The women consented believing D was medically qualified or was doing medical training. The CA held D committed an offence as the women only consented to medical examination, not "indecent behaviour".
|
|
|
What happens if the consent is obtained via fear? Give a case example.
|
The fact that the V submits to the D's conduct through fear does not mean the consent is real. In Olugboja, V was raped by D's companion. She had seen D rape another woman and so allowed him to have sex with her and D said she consented. The CA held there was a difference between real consent and mere submission and it was for the jury to decide which it was.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Dica?
|
D infected two women with HIV after having unprotected sex which the women had consented to. However, D had not told he was HIV positive. D was held to have committed s.20 GBH as the women did not give real consent to the transmitting of the disease.
|
|
|
What did Wilson v Pringle establish?
|
D, a schoolboy, seized the bag over V's shoulder, causing him injury, and V sued for the tort of assault. The court held that V must have established an intentional and hostile touching from D and that the 'jostling' of everyday life carried an implied consent. V lost.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Barnes?
|
D made a late tackle on a player during an amateur game leading to a serious injury. While the tackle was 'hard', it was within in the rules of the game and so the court held it was not grave enough to be criminal.
|
|
|
What happened in AG Reference (No 6 of 1980)? What did this case establish?
|
Ds had quarrelled and agreed to settle their differences by fighting in the street. The CA held the defence was unavailable as people should not seek to cause each other harm for "no good reason".
It also set out certain recognised exceptions where the defence would be available: "properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions, etc." |
|
|
What happened in R v Brown?
|
D was convicted of s.20 and s.47 as part of an adult homosexual sadomasochistic group where all consented and none needed medical attention. The court withheld the defence on the grounds of public policy.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Wilson?
|
D branded his wife's buttocks with his initials using a hot knife with her consent though she needed medical treatment. The CA held that branding is akin to tattooing in that it is a physical adornment. Prosecution for such was not in the public interest.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Jones?
|
Two boys were tossed into the air by older boys who then failed to catch them. Vs suffered a broken arm and ruptured spleen. The CA held there could be consent to rough horseplay based on an honest belief. Ds' convictions were therefore quashed.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Aitken?
|
The D was an RAF officer who with others poured white spirit over a drunk and sleeping friend who was wearing a fire-resistant flying suit but still suffered major burns when set alight. D's conviction for s.20 was quashed as the CA held the jury should be left to decide if there was a mistaken belief in V's consent.
|
|
|
What does s.58 Children Act 2004 set out?
|
Section 58 of the 2004 Act sets out that the defence of reasonable punishment will not be available to parents who cause physical injury to their children. Although, it does not expressly prohibit parents smacking their children.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Emmett?
|
D and his girlfriend had sex which resulted in haemorrhage to the girlfriend's eye and burns on her breasts. The CA upheld his convictions as it said the V could not have given lawful consent to such acts.
|
|
|
What happened in Pretty v DPP? What did this case establish?
|
P sought a declaration that her husband would not be prosecuted if he assisted her suicide. The HL refused this declaration as there could be no consent to death on the grounds of public policy.
|
