Consent

• Consent - mostly seen in NFOAP scenarios (but can be relevant to unlawful act manslaughter too)
• Consent - can never be a defence for…

  Murder

  -> Pretty v UK
• Consent - can be a defence for…

  Manslaughter - Slingsby

  -> Vs consent meant that there was no battery and so the D was not guilty of their death
• Consent - must be true consent

  Olugboja

  -> COA:submission is not real consent, and it is a jury decision as to whether consent is real or not
• Consent - Tabassum


  The V’s consent was not true as although they had consent to being touched, they didn’t really know what they were consenting to
• Consent - implied consent

  Wilson v Pringle

  -> implied consent is always given to the “ordinary jostling of everyday life”
• Consent - AG’s Ref (no. 6 of 1980)


  COA: consent could not be a defence for a s.47 offence or higher.

  HWVR, they listed exceptions to this rule:

  • properly conducted games and sports
  • lawful chastisement or correction
  • reasonable surgical interference
  • dangerous exhibitions
• Consent - Brown


  HL held that consent was not a defence to sado-masochistic acts carried out by homosexuals
• Consent - Wilson


  COA held that a husband branding his wife was not unlawful because of consent.

  It was not in public interest to criminalise this kind of consensual behaviour
• Consent - Barnes


  Participants of sport consent to injury within the normal rules of the game.

  Only sufficiently serious injuries should be dealt with by the criminal courts
• Consent - Jones


  A genuine mistaken belief in consent could also lead to a successful defence of consent, as this would fall into the recognised exception of rough horseplay