Consent Flashcards
R v Richardson v Irwin
Once raised by D, burden of proof is on prosecution to show that victim did not consent and that the defendant did not believe in the consent
AG’s Reference No 6 of 1980
Most fights will be unlawful regardless of consent (minor struggles may differ)
R v Brown
Cannot consent to anything more than battery, unless sport, chastisement or reasonable surgery
R v Meachen
Consent available as defence where harm is greater than ABH as long as D did not intend to cause harm and did not see the risk
Collins v Willcock
Implied consent to battery if everyday contact
R v Barnes
Implied consent to battery in properly conducted sporting games, unless so obviously violent as to not be regarded as an instinctive reaction, error or misjudgement in the context of the game
R v Billinghurst
Sports players are deemed to have consented to force of a kind which could reasonably be expected to happen during a game
R v Brown
Consent not allowed as a defence to sexual gratification or personal adornment
R v Wilson
Wound caused by branding became infected - akin to personal adornment
R v Dica
HIV positive - had sex with and infected 2 women - held that HIV constituted serious harm and consent did not apply
R v Emmet
Suffocation during sex was violent conduct that was beyond what could be consented to
R v Slingsby
Not aware that there was a risk of harm (caused by ring) - no MR for OAPA
R v Jones
Implied consent if horseplay is everyday occurrence between defendant and victim
R v Hopley
Parent may use reasonable force to chastise a child (would now be challenged under Article 3)
