consent

Question 1

Wilson V Pringle

Answer 1

implied consent, everyday contact ordinary jostling (crowds) does not amount to battery

Question 2

Burrell v Harmer

Answer 2

tattooing 2 boys under age
guilty - consent is invalid as the boys didn’t understand the nature (physical action) and quality (amount of harm) of the act

Question 3

Coney

Answer 3

bare knuckle fight

consent invalid as the fight was not under the Queensbury Rules - harm is higher than utility

Question 4

AG Ref (1980)

Answer 4

young lads had a fight in the street

COA in future cases consent is vitiated due to public policy - harm higher than utility

Question 5

Billinghurst

Answer 5

game of rugby - during an off ball period D fractured Vs jaw
guilty of S.20 GBH the act was outside open play

Question 6

Cicarelli

Answer 6

ice hockey game - off the ball period D attacked V on the head and the ref
guilty - consent failed as it was off off the ball

Question 7

Barnes

Answer 7

football match - late reckless tackle
TJ - guilty of S.20 GBH
COA not guilty as the foul had to be sufficiently grave to be classed as criminal

Question 8

horseplay

Answer 8

consent is accepted as been a good defence as its people of a similar age engaging in friendly violence

Question 9

Jones

Answer 9

group of older boys tossed two young boys in the air - broken arm and ruptured spleen
not guilty as consent was valid - mistake was subjective

Question 10

Aitken

Answer 10

RAF exams, set fire to a persons suit whilst he was asleep - severe burns
charged with S.20 consent succeeded due to horseplay - mistake subjective as he thought he had Vs consent

Question 11

Slingsby

Answer 11

penetrated young girl - led to cuts internally which caused he to die of blood poisoning
NG - consent valid as there was no MR for injury

Question 12

Donovan

Answer 12

prostitute caned for the Ds sexual pleasure - serious injures of a severe beating
guilty of assault invalid consent as it was unlawful force

Question 13

Brown and Others

Answer 13

group of men engaging in acts of violence for sexual pleasure (torture chamber) - all consented and none of them needed medical treatment
guilty of S.47 & S.20 wounding consent is invalid as deliberate injury for sexual pleasure for no good reason
- 3:2 split
- set the rules for consent
- ratio is unclear
Law lords ….
- aids is irrelevant
- manly diversion
- prevent violence from society
- it was a corruption of young men
Disenting judges - the act wasn’t criminal and was for parliament to decide

Question 14

Emmet

Answer 14

husband SNM activities - set fire to his wife

guilty - applied Brown consent is invalid

Question 15

Wilson

Answer 15

branded his wife’s bum with a hot blade
TJ - guilty of S.47 ABH
COA - quashed consensual activities should be criminalised - it was like having a tattoo

Question 16

Bolduc and Bird

Answer 16

false medical student observing a vaginal examination

not guilty as consent was valid as V understood the nature of him observing

Question 17

Richardson

Answer 17

struck of dentist carried on working

not guilty consent valid as patients understood the nature of the act

Question 18

Tabassum

Answer 18

fake medical defendant measured womens breasts for an experiment
guilty - consent is invalid as they didn’t understand the nature and quality
test changed to both N&Q

Question 19

Clarence 1888

Answer 19

unaware wife infected with a VD

not guilty as she understood the nature and consented to sex so consented to the infection

Question 20

Dica

Answer 20

knew he had HIV and slept with 2 women (unprotected)
COA guilty of S.20 consent for sex is not automatic consent to infections - d should of informed V for consent to be valid