Evaluation of Consent

• Generally speaking, you can't consent to more than an assault or battery but there are exceptions like sexual activity and horseplay.
• If there is no personal injury, then the courts will not interfere with a person's right to do what they want.
• If an injury is caused, consent won't be a defence unless it falls within an exception on the basis of public policy.
• The consent given must be genuine.

  Williams
• The consent must not be given under fear or fraud or else it's not genuine.

  Olugboja
• Consent can be given for medical purposes, anything above or besides will not be consented to.

  Tabassum: Had her breasts fondled during a medical exam. She consented to the medical check up, not her breasts being fondled.
• This makes the law of consent fair and consistent and protects victims where is consent. It also means that courts recognise consent coming from fear or consent for a different purpose.
• The law itself is fair and consistent but the application of it is illogical.
• You cannot consent to someone helping bring about your death (euthanasia).
• Terminally ill people must commit suicide if they wish to die, but it's not always possible for them to do that.

  Pretty v DPP.
• In cases where the person is close to death and is merely in a vegetative state and in a position where they can't get any more out of their life, they should have the right to ask for help with ending their life.
• Denying assisted suicide can cause psychological distress for family members and loved ones because they may be watching a loved one suffering.
• There is huge support surrounding the laws on euthanasia, including pressure groups like Dignity in Dying raising public awareness.
• However, despite the outcry for a change in law, the Assisted Dying Bill 2015 did not pass and is therefore still illegal to help someone or request the help.
• Moral values and sexuality can also affect the outcome of cases. In R v Brown, there was verbal consent yet the defence was not held. In R v Wilson, there was consent and the defence was allowed. It's been questioned that the judge of R v Brown was homophobic and therefore if the case was brought today, would it have a different outcome?
• Differences in moral value and opinion on sexuality can change a outcome but it shouldn't because the law is meant to be applied fairly for all.
• In R v Brown, a group of homosexual men were engaging in homosexual sado-masochistic activities however they were with consenting adults and they had no injuries requiring treatment. The Lords rejecting this and said it was in "public interest" to convict them.
• Consent is not strictly a defence, if the victim consents, then no offence has happened in the first place.
• In R v Slingsby, the defendant penetrated his partner vaginally and infected her with a signet ring. She died as a result. The victim's consent meant that there was no battery and the defendant was not guilty.
• R v Slingsby reflects the legal principle in that it respects an individuals right to choose what sexual activity they engage in.
• In the case of Jones, the courts allowed the defence of consent even when it wasn't verbal.
• In the case of Aiken, the consent was allowed because it was "genuinely mistaken".
• The cases of Jones and Aiken can mean a lack of protection for victims as well as a lack of justice.
• The law is urgently in need of reform surrounding euthanasia and the exceptions. There is a need to rebalance the sometime conflicting interests of society and the individual's freedoms.
• But, as always, change is slow and there is unlikely to be change any time soon, despite the public outcries.