Consent 1B

Question 1

What are the 2 parts to proving consent?

Answer 1

Can V consent to the crime?
Did V really consent to the crime?

Question 2

What case is used for Assault and Battery?

Answer 2

R v Slingsby

Question 3

What does R v Slingsby say?

Answer 3

Consent can be used as a defence for common assault.

Question 4

What case is used for Murder?

Answer 4

Pretty v UK

Question 5

What does Pretty v UK say?

Answer 5

Consent can never be used as a defence for murder.

Question 6

What case is used for s18 crimes?

Answer 6

R v Leach

Question 7

What does R v Leach say?

Answer 7

Consent can never be used as a defence to a crime under s18.

Question 8

What case is used for s47 and s20 crimes?

Answer 8

R v Brown

Question 9

What does R v Brown say?

Answer 9

Consent cannot generally be used as a defence to s47 or s20 crimes. However there are some exceptions.

Question 10

What are the exceptions stated in R v Brown?

Answer 10

Properly conducted games/sports
Rough horseplay
Tattooing/branding
Medical treatment

Question 11

What case is used for Rough horseplay?

Answer 11

Aitken

Question 12

What does Aitken say?

Answer 12

Even D’s drunken and mistaken belief in V’s consent can be a defence.

Question 13

What case is used for tattooing/branding?

Answer 13

R v Wilson

Question 14

What does R v Wilson say?

Answer 14

Branding is the same as tattooing.

Question 15

What does R v Olugboja say?

Answer 15

Submission is not the same as consent.

Question 16

What are the 3 things to consider for “does V actually consent”?

Answer 16

CGI
Capacity
Genuine
Implied

Question 17

When do you use capacity?

Answer 17

Only when you doubt they have capacity.

Question 18

What case is used for Capacity?

Answer 18

Gillick

Question 19

What does Gillick say?

Answer 19

The court said to ask the question of - Does V have sufficient maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the nature and consequences of what they are consenting to?

Question 20

What does R v Newland say?

Answer 20

Consent may not be genuine when V does not know the nature or risks of the activity.

Question 21

When do you use implied consent?

Answer 21

For sports/games
For ordinary jostlings of everyday life

Question 22

How many eval points are there?

Answer 22

6

Question 23

Eval point 1: Pretty v UK

Answer 23

P- Makes it clear V cannot consent to murder.
Bad - some people w/ severe illness may be suffering extreme pain but unable to end life (such as Tony Nicklinson). Denying option of assissted suicide = denying compassion and Relief
Good - it would be dangerous to allow consent as could create situations of abuse of the law or manipulation of a vulnerable person into agreeing to die.
L- Link to question

Question 24

Eval Point 2: R v Aitken

Answer 24

P- D allowed to make drunken mistake, so no need for consent to be genuine in such cases
Bad- had to justify this situation does not need valid consent. In Aitken V suffered serious burns from being set on fire (which no reasonable person would think V would consent to) This allows people to perform obviously dangerous acts too freely.
Good- Jury need to be convinced D genuinely believed there was consent, they may be unlikely to think this if the lack of consent was very obvious. This also only applies to horseplay which limits it being exploited.
L- link to question

Question 25

Eval Point 3: D harms V

Answer 25

P- generally consent is not available for crimes where D harms V Good- in public interest as protects people from harm, it would be wrong for the law to encourage violence without very good reason. Bad- Denies people autonomy to make choices for themselves about what they do and what happens to their body. Could be argued as restricting freedom too much. L- link to question

Question 26

Eval Point 4: s47 and s20

Answer 26

P- many lawful exceptions that allow consent for s47 and s20 Good- this flexibility good as it would be absurd for surgery and sport to not be allowed as they can result in social good. Bad- Working out if lawful activity such as valid horseplay not always clear so exceptions lead to complexity and uncertainty. L- Link to question

Question 27

Eval Point 5: Case distinguish

Answer 27

P- Some cases distinguished very unclearly Bad- hard to justify branding in wilson less cruel than acts in Brown. No-one in brown needed medical attention but V in wilson did. Suggests branding more dangerous so hard to see logic in decision. Good- Relationships and purposes are different. Wilson- harm incidental to branding (only for love) and married couple. Brown- harm was purpose and carried out by non formal partners. L- Link to question

Question 28

Eval Point 6: Brown Prejudice

Answer 28

P- Decision could be due to prejudice. Bad- judgement describes acts as "evil" and "worthy of digust" and hopes participants move to a "normal heterosexual relationship". Personal prejudice undermines legal reasoning and 2/5 judges disagree. Good- Brown still not been overruled nor changed by parliament even in the wake of cultural events like 50 shades of grey, suggests there is merit to the decision to protect people from this. L- Link to question