Consent

• AG's Ref No 6 of 1980 held what about consent?


  To certain exceptions mentioned, a person's consent is irrelevant and cannot prevent criminal liability for an offence if ABH was intended and/or caused. It's not in the public interest that people should try to cause, or do cause, each other ABH for NO GOOD REASON (eg sexual fulfilment). In some cases, there may be good reason and CA was clear when emphasising that the above rule did not affect the accepted legality of certain situations in which the consent of V is legally relevant and renders the conduct in question unlawful
• Coney


  A persons consent is irrelevant- the bare knuckle fight was also public and they were betting.
• CONSENT DOES NOT MAKE AN UNLAWFUL ACT LAWFUL


  Donovan where consent was said to be irrelevant if the injuries amount to anything 'more than transient or trifling', an unlawful act doesn't become lawful just because V consents
• Brown, Wilson, Slingsby and Emmett show what?

  Complete inconsistency and the question of whether the law should be interfering in the private lives of people. Are the juries being judgemental and bias by their own opinions of the consensual acts to find them guilty? Brown and Emmett were convicted, Wilson and Slingsby were not
• AG's Ref No 6 of 1980, whilst also outlining a person cannot consent to ABH, also gave exceptions to what?


  Intentional ABH can be consented for in a situation where the law regards the public interest to require the exception. Including:

  • a reasonable surgical interference
  • tattooing
  • ear piercing
  • a properly conducted game or sport (what does this mean?)
• Reasonable surgical interference


  Involving a wound and can therefore be described as harm to the body. However, the law does permit the consent of a patient to surgery performed by a suitably qualified doctor. Clearly there's a social benefit there.
• Properly conducted game or sport

  • boxing, wresting = properly conducted sport
  • organised sports, recognised rules, appropriate supervision from a referee
  • bare knuckle fights that ast until one person cannot continue are not regarded as properly conducted sport
  • consent in boxing = intentional harm within the rules, a blow delivered between rounds wouldn't be consensual
  • football and rugby consent to such contact that is incidental and normal to the game (Barnes was in the rules of the game and implied consent existed, Billinghurst was outside the rules of the game so punch wasn't consensual)
• General rule for sports?

  If it's within the rules of the game then there's implied consent so there's no offence, even if serious injury is caused as a result
• R v Jones?


  Ruled 'rough and ready horseplay' was a defence and even without consent if there was a genuine belief that there was consent they should be allowed the defence
• Wilson and Pringle

  Courts ruled 'everyday jostling' of ordinary life is also something to which we all implicitly consent
• Genuine consent

  To gain the defence the consent cannot be gained through coercion, fraud, trickery or any false means (Tabassum and Melin). D was a qualified Doctor who'd been suspended so he was acquitted as it wasn't any false means (Richardson). If V submitted to an act then it's not true consent eg through fear (Olugboja). Consent to sex doesn't equate to consent to sex with someone with an STI or HIV, consent wouldn't be fully formed as there is not full knowledge which is a deception (Dica).