Consent

• What is consent in relation to battery and other offences against the person?


  Consent may be a defence to battery but not to serious injury (GBH s20/18).
• How does having the consent of the victim affect liability in battery?


  Having the consent of V prevents D from incurring liability.
• What was the outcome of the case Donovan (1934) regarding consent?


  D's conviction was quashed because V had consented.
• What happened in the case of Slingsby (1995) regarding consent?


  D was not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because V's consent meant there was no unlawful act.
• What constitutes 'true' consent according to the case Tabassum (2000)?


  True consent requires that individuals are not deceived about the nature of the act.
• What was the ruling in R v Dica [2004] regarding consent and HIV status?


  Vs had not consented to the risk of HIV infection as they were unaware of D's status.
• What does the case Collins v Wilcock [1984] imply about consent?


  The courts imply consent to minor touching in everyday situations.
• What are the exceptions where consent to ABH may be valid?


  • Properly conducted games and sports
  • Lawful chastisement or correction
  • Reasonable surgical interference
  • Dangerous exhibitions
• What did Lord Lane CJ state in AG's Ref (No 6 of 1980) regarding fights?


  It is not in the public interest for people to cause bodily harm for no good reason.
• What was the outcome of R v Barnes [2004] regarding consent in sports?


  Prosecutions should only occur if conduct is sufficiently grave to be categorized as criminal.
• What was the ruling in Brown [1993] regarding consent to ABH?


  Consent is a defence to battery but not to s47 ABH, s20 or s18 GBH unless a recognized exception applies.
• What were the activities of the men in Brown [1993] that led to their convictions?


  They engaged in sadomasochistic acts, including applying stinging nettles and inserting objects into each other.
• What was the significance of the case R v Wilson [1997] regarding public interest?


  The conviction was quashed as it was not in the public interest to criminalize consensual behavior between adults.
• What was the outcome of Jones and Others [1987] regarding mistaken belief in consent?


  A genuine mistaken belief in consent to rough play could be a defence, even if unreasonable.
• What was the ruling in R v P [2005] regarding consent in practical jokes?


  The manslaughter conviction was upheld as there was no genuine belief that the victim was consenting.
• What are the key cases related to consent and their implications?


  • Donovan (1934): Consent can quash conviction for indecent assault.
  • Slingsby (1995): Consent negates unlawful act in vigorous activity.
  • Tabassum (2000): True consent requires no deception about the act.
  • Dica (2004): Consent to sex does not include risk of HIV.
  • Collins v Wilcock (1984): Implied consent to minor touching.
  • AG's Ref (No 6 of 1980): Fights are generally unlawful regardless of consent.
  • Barnes (2004): Sports injuries may be lawful if not criminally grave.
  • Brown (1993): Consent is not a defence to ABH or GBH.
  • Wilson (1997): Consensual acts between adults should not be criminalized.
  • Jones and Others (1987): Mistaken belief in consent can be a defence.
  • R v P (2005): No genuine belief in consent leads to conviction.
• What is the legal status of implied consent in minor touching?


  Courts imply consent to minor touching to avoid battery claims.
• What is the significance of the term 'true consent' in legal cases?

  True consent means individuals must not be deceived about the nature or quality of the act.
• How do the courts view consent in the context of public interest?


  The courts balance consent against public interest, often ruling against consent in cases of serious harm.