CONSENTThis is a full defence. That means that if you successfully plea a defence of consent then you will not receive a sentence and be acquitted. There are a few rules to consent made from cases because there is no actual statute law for this area. The cases have come together to give a list of dos and don'ts in consent.
|
General Rules
1.You cannot consent to murder /manslaughter.
There is no defence for murder in consent - this is because assisted suicide/euthanasia is actually illegal.
2. You may be able to consent to assault and battery
There is a defence for these low level non-fatal offences. Battery includes in its definition 'without consent' so it allows there to be a defence of consent. The application of unlawful force can be consented to in court. When there are injuries suffered, it is less likely to be consent.
3. You may be able to consent to ABH or GBH in sport played according to the rules and for, medical procedures. Children may not be able to consent if they do not understand the nature of what they are consenting to: (Burrell v Harmer) For sport and medicine usually a parent’s consent is required.
4. You can consent to some ABH in horseplay, but it will depend on the jury and the victim and defendant and could also depend on whether the people involved were intoxicated.
Medical cases
There is no defence when a person does not know what they are truly consenting to, in the nature of what they are consenting to. In Tabassum, the defendant said that he was a doctor who would offer breast examinations to patients. He says that he has the defence of consent, but the courts ruled that they did not truly know the nature of what they were consenting to because it was deception and therefore not true consent. In Richardson, there were dentists who were not properly registered to practice. The nature of dental work was agreed to even if they weren't registered though so the cases are slightly different because of the deception being about the action and what they are consenting to.
Children will be unable to consent and need the consent of a parent or guardian. They do not understand the nature and implications of what they are consenting to all the time. In Burrel v Harmer, the defendant tattooed children who were 12 and 13 and there was said to be no consent as they did not understand the pain they would suffer and the long permanent effects.
1.You cannot consent to murder /manslaughter.
There is no defence for murder in consent - this is because assisted suicide/euthanasia is actually illegal.
2. You may be able to consent to assault and battery
There is a defence for these low level non-fatal offences. Battery includes in its definition 'without consent' so it allows there to be a defence of consent. The application of unlawful force can be consented to in court. When there are injuries suffered, it is less likely to be consent.
3. You may be able to consent to ABH or GBH in sport played according to the rules and for, medical procedures. Children may not be able to consent if they do not understand the nature of what they are consenting to: (Burrell v Harmer) For sport and medicine usually a parent’s consent is required.
4. You can consent to some ABH in horseplay, but it will depend on the jury and the victim and defendant and could also depend on whether the people involved were intoxicated.
Medical cases
There is no defence when a person does not know what they are truly consenting to, in the nature of what they are consenting to. In Tabassum, the defendant said that he was a doctor who would offer breast examinations to patients. He says that he has the defence of consent, but the courts ruled that they did not truly know the nature of what they were consenting to because it was deception and therefore not true consent. In Richardson, there were dentists who were not properly registered to practice. The nature of dental work was agreed to even if they weren't registered though so the cases are slightly different because of the deception being about the action and what they are consenting to.
Children will be unable to consent and need the consent of a parent or guardian. They do not understand the nature and implications of what they are consenting to all the time. In Burrel v Harmer, the defendant tattooed children who were 12 and 13 and there was said to be no consent as they did not understand the pain they would suffer and the long permanent effects.
Sport
There will not be a defence of consent if the injury is outside of the rules of the game. It is expected in a game of rugby that there is tackling, but if you tackle and cause injury then that can be seen as part of the game.
If there is a late tackle or tackling after the whistle then the consent to injuries has ended. In the case of Johnson, a rugby player bit the ear of an opponent. It was said that this was outside the rules of the game so could not use a defence of consent. In R v Barnes, it was said that it was acceptable that there would be some rough play in contact sports. In Lloyd, this was extended and shows that although some sports involved rough play does not mean that this was an excuse for thuggery. The D's actions had nothing to do with rugby tackling but was a barbaric attack. There was no defence of consent here.
There will not be a defence of consent if the injury is outside of the rules of the game. It is expected in a game of rugby that there is tackling, but if you tackle and cause injury then that can be seen as part of the game.
If there is a late tackle or tackling after the whistle then the consent to injuries has ended. In the case of Johnson, a rugby player bit the ear of an opponent. It was said that this was outside the rules of the game so could not use a defence of consent. In R v Barnes, it was said that it was acceptable that there would be some rough play in contact sports. In Lloyd, this was extended and shows that although some sports involved rough play does not mean that this was an excuse for thuggery. The D's actions had nothing to do with rugby tackling but was a barbaric attack. There was no defence of consent here.
Rough Horseplay
This is an exceptionally odd one to define because it isn't a common phrase we use anymore. It seems to define the type of behavior seen in young adolescents and teenagers and young adults of 'jostling'. Play fighting, messing about, throwing other's around and silly games can come under this category. This can be consented to but if it is not in the public interest than there won't be a defence. In Jones, Jones and others, R v (1986) CA, it showed that consent under horseplay can be present for GBH charges but only where there is no intention. In this case boys threw another in the air for birthday bumps and was injured, suffering a ruptured spleen. They were not guilty because there was a defence of consent in cases where there was no intention.
In Aitken, a victim can give effective consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough undisciplined play. As a practical joke, the RAF officers set fire to another officer who was wearing their fire resistant clothing. If the defendants knew or believed the victim has consented, then the judge is open to decide that there was no offence.
This is an exceptionally odd one to define because it isn't a common phrase we use anymore. It seems to define the type of behavior seen in young adolescents and teenagers and young adults of 'jostling'. Play fighting, messing about, throwing other's around and silly games can come under this category. This can be consented to but if it is not in the public interest than there won't be a defence. In Jones, Jones and others, R v (1986) CA, it showed that consent under horseplay can be present for GBH charges but only where there is no intention. In this case boys threw another in the air for birthday bumps and was injured, suffering a ruptured spleen. They were not guilty because there was a defence of consent in cases where there was no intention.
In Aitken, a victim can give effective consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough undisciplined play. As a practical joke, the RAF officers set fire to another officer who was wearing their fire resistant clothing. If the defendants knew or believed the victim has consented, then the judge is open to decide that there was no offence.
Consent can be a successful defence to private actions but when there is severe injuries for sexual gratification then there will not be a consent. In R v Brown and others (1993), a group of sadomasochist homosexuals were taking part in graphic sexual acts that caused sever injuries to each other. The courts said that because it is impossible to predict the severity of the injuries, and although they did not need medical attention, there would be no chance to consent to these injuries and therefore it would be GBH.
In Wilson, a man branded his wife's buttocks with a hot knife with her consent. The injuries got infected and she had to go seek medical help. The issue was whether she could consent to the injuries. They were not serious but were enough to fulfill the criteria of a injury. The courts determined it was similar to that of tattooing and personal body adornment and what happened in the privacy of a married couple in the home was no concern of the courts. So some ABH charges you can consent to.
In Wilson, a man branded his wife's buttocks with a hot knife with her consent. The injuries got infected and she had to go seek medical help. The issue was whether she could consent to the injuries. They were not serious but were enough to fulfill the criteria of a injury. The courts determined it was similar to that of tattooing and personal body adornment and what happened in the privacy of a married couple in the home was no concern of the courts. So some ABH charges you can consent to.