evaluation

• why do we need the defence of consent?

  The defence of consent is crucial in allowing properly regulated sports and medical procedures to take place without facing prosecution.

  It allows for the distinction between properly conducted sports and illegal activities, based on public policy considerations.
• what conflicting decision arose from the case of r v brown?

  In brown, the HL ruled that consent cant be a defence to sadomasochism.
• what was the conflicting decision that arose from the case of r v wilson?

  Consent was deemed a defence when a husband branded his wife
• why were the results of the cases of r v brown and r v wilson contridictive?

  Because the outcomes raised questions about equality and autonomy, especially concerning the different treatment based on sexual orientation
• how have the courts' decisions regarding consent been criticised?

  They have been criticised for inconsistency and for imposing outdated moral values.
• What is an example of the courts' decisions being inconsistent and upholding out dated values?

  In R v Emmett, where consent wasnt allowed as a defence for significanct harm, and r v brown where public policy influenced the decision- these cases lack coherence
• how does the law treat consent in cases of horseplay that results in serious injury?

  The courts will allow consent in terms of horseplay, even when it results in serious harm. This is because the D lacks the Men's rea for the harm- an honest belief in the victim's consent is considered sufficient.
• which cases raise questions about consistency in the aplication of consent as a defence in terms of horse play?

  R v Jones and also r v Aitkens
• what is the significance of the case of r v (pretty) v DPP?

  It shows how individuals cannot consent to another person assisting in bringing about their death. It recognises an individual's autonomy in taking their own life however will not allow assistance for those incapable of doing it themselves.
• What case upheld the decision of r (Pretty) v DPP?

  Nicklinson v ministry of justice 2014