Consent Knowledge Summary

• Definition: when a v willingly agrees to suffer an injury by the D
• Consent: Must be

  • real, ie the person must not be consenting because they are scared or submissive R v Olugboja
  • Informed, so v is fully aware of all the circumstances and have all the information, R v Dica
  • Not obtained by fraud, R v Tabbassum
  • Can be given expressly - verbal or written agreement, or implied where it is in the 'jostlings of everyday life,' Wilson v Pringle
  • By a V of sound mind (Re F)
  • Not by a child who doesn't understand what they are consenting to; Burrell v Hamer. However, if they are Gillick competent then they can give valid consent.
• Availability: the general rule is that the V cannot consent to death so unavailable for euthanasia (Pretty v UK)

  A V cannot consent to injury above a battery (Brown) where consent was not valid in relation to charges of ABH/GBH caused by S&M activity, unless the activity falls within certain rules recognised in public policy reasons.
• • Sport: Did the victim consent to a sporting activity when they suffered an injury? R v Barnes the Court of Appeal stated that 'prosecution should only be reserved for situations where the conduct was sufficient grave to be characterised as criminal.' It set out the following guidelines: intention to cause injury in sport and injury caused due to bad temper will be criminal. 'Off the ball' incidents are likely to be criminal but if the d's actions are within the 'rules of the game' then they are not criminal.
• • Rough horseplay: Consent available if there was no intention on the part of D to cause injury; R v Jones. It was decided that a genuine mistaken belief in consent, even if unreasonable, is allowed.
• • Medical treatment: most surgical treatment can be readily consented to, either expressly by signing consent forms or having forms signed by a parent or guardian on behalf of a child and by implied consent in emergence (if in the best interests of the patient).
• • Piercings and tattoos: can be consented to but is regulated by statues such as the Tattooing of Minors Act 2969 which made it in offence to tattoo a person under the age of 18 save for medical reasons. In R v Wilson, the CA held that the branding of the d's wife's buttocks was not an unlawful act as this was a situation of personal adornment like having a tattoo.
• Outcome:

  Successful = acquitted

  Unsuccessful = convicted