A03 Consent Flashcards
(3 cards)
A01
Define the defense
- common law defense
- to some non fatals (OAPA 1861) eg assault / battery
- not usually ABH unless exception falls under recognized public policy eg. Sports , surgery
- AG reference no6 1980 = consent is not a valid defense to ABH unless in public interest
A01 cases
- (r v tabassum) not by deception
- (r v olugboja) not through coercion/ fear
- (r v diva) must be fully informed
- (r v Barnes) sports
- (r v jones) horseplay
A03 points
1) inconsistent -
(r v brown) convicted , (r v Wilson) not.
Law treats similar harm differently based on moral views and public policy/interest.
Suggests courts are more influenced by judicial moral bias than legal principle, making it unpredictable and outdated.
2) individual freedom and autonomy/ human rights -
Conflicts with human rights act 1998 ??
Argue adults should have the right to consent to acts of harm in private as long as the consent is valid.
Current law fails to reflect modern day views on human rights / autonomy.
However paradoxically they can consent to harm in sports (r v Barnes).
Modern approach = recognize right of consent as long as voluntarily and full understanding shifting focus from morality to protection from harm / coercion.
3) inconsistent in sports -
Problems around harm inside and outside the rules of the game. Some sports deliberate harm is Abel to consent to. Others it’s deemed an offence even if less than deliberate.
Eg. Football / boxing
(R v Barnes / billingshurst)
4) reform suggestions -
Reform aspects regarding euthanasia by campaign organizations
(Law commission 1995 report into consent)
Argue that adults with limited life expectancy who are capable of fully understanding and consenting to the action should be able to consent to euthanasia in order to avoid a greater evil.
