Criminal Law Consent

Front 1

Kimber

Back 1

valid consent negates the actus reus of the crime-there is no AR

Front 2

B V DPP

Back 2

approved of Kimber

Front 3

Brown

Back 3

consent does not negate AR but works in a similar way to duress

activities in the public interest can be consented to

there was no public interest in causing harm during sadomasochistic activity

Front 4

Collins & Wilcock

Back 4

we consent to contact in normal day to day activities

Front 5

Burrell v Harmer

Back 5

you cannot validly consent when you are too young to understand the nature of the act

Front 6

Attorney Generals Reference no 6

Back 6

it is not in the public interest that people should cause each other actual bodily harm for no reason
Participation in a dangerous exhibit,ear piercing, male circumcision and tattooing are good reasons

Front 7

Wilson

Back 7

D branding V at V's request was ok

Front 8

Barnes

Back 8

a person can consent to the risk of an accidental injury occurring during a properly conducted contact sport

Front 9

Jones

Back 9

persons can consent to the risk of harm in horseplay provided there is no intention of harm

Front 10

Slingsby

Back 10

where injury is caused during non s&m sexual activity and there is no aggressive intent, there is no liability

Front 11

Meachen

Back 11

in sex cases, P must show that D intended to cause some bodily harm, or caused such harm recklessly

Front 12

Laskey

Back 12

decision in Brown is justified on public health grounds

Front 13

Emmett

Back 13

during sex, if the realistic risk goes beyond transient injury, the issue of consent becomes immaterial

Front 14

Richardson

Back 14

suspended dentist case-an assault could only occur where consent was given in the mistaken belief the dentist was someone other than who he truly was

Front 15

Tabassum

Back 15

A woman who consented to the touching of her breasts, because she mistakenly believed the defendant was medically qualified, was only consenting to the nature of the act, not to its quality. In the absence of genuine consent the defendant would be guilty of indecent assault.

Front 16

Dica

Back 16

If v gives consent knowing of the d's condition, there is no liability, but if consent is in ignorance, guilt results-overruled Clarence