Consent:

• What actually amounts to reasonable medical procedures leads to difficulties with respect to cosmetic procedures and body adornments. This was shown in cases such as R V Melin (2019) and R V BM (). This means that it makes it very difficult for lawyers and solicitors to advise their clients whether or not they should be able to use the defence of consent. Thus leading to the rule of law being broken due to the law surrounding consent is not being clear and predictable.
• Consent and Euthanasia: No one can consent to another person assisting in bringing about their own death. This means that if a terminally ill patient wishes to die, they must take their own life. If anyone helps bring about the death, they will face a charge of murder or assisting suicide. This was decided in R (on the application of Pretty) V DDP (2001). This decision leads to the situation where the law recognises the personal autonomy of a person being entitled to their own life and not committing any crime by trying to do so.
• However in cases where people who wish to commit suicide are physically incapable of doing so, then they are denied their wishes as anyone who helps them will be guilty of an offence. There have been several attempts such as Tony Nicklinson in 2014. In this case and others, the courts have stated that it is an issue for parliament to consider. However Parliament has not altered this piece of legislation yet.
• Policy matters, sexual consent and inconsistency: Section 74 Sexual Offences act 2003 makes it clear that a person consents to any sexual penetration only if there is agreement by choice to that penetration and that the person has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Furthermore it allows the victim to withdraw at any point during sexual activity and can be subject to conditions like wearing a condom etc. This was shown in R V Boyea.
• To establish whether there is consent, the prosecution and defence look at the evidence of consent or lack of consent. This involves whether the victims was targeted, the vulnerability of the victim and the context of the alleged offence. This puts a great burden on juries and is liable to end up with inconsistent decisions. Thus leading to a reduced amount of successful prosecutions of sexual assaults.
• Necessity of the defence: The case of R V Barnes (2004) sets out the criteria of whether an assault was committed during a sports match was criminal. The court said that in deciding whether conduct in the course of a sport is criminal or not, the following factors need to be considered; Intentional infliction of injury will always be criminal For reckless intention of injury, did the injury occur during actual play, or in a moment of temper or over-excitement when play had ceased? “Off the ball” injuries are more likely to be criminal.
• However there is a low degree of cases being heard about sporting incidents due to the high amount of protection given by the sporting governors. This was seen in Lloyd. This means that there is a high proportion of cases not having the right outcome, which is contradicting the main aim of criminal law which is to provide justice for the victim.
• Medical procedures - Another exception is when consent is allowed as a defence if reasonable surgical interferences. This is clearly allows a doctor to carry out a surgery when a patient requires it so that it can save the patient’s life or to improve the patient’s health.