Consent

Question 1

What are the 2 questions to be asked in order to prove consent?

Answer 1

1. Can V consent to the crime?

2. Did V really consent to the crime?

Question 2

What crimes can V consent to?

Answer 2

Common assault and battery. - Slingsby

Question 3

What crimes can V not consent to?

Answer 3

Murder - Pretty v UK

S18 - Leach

Question 4

What crimes can V generally not consent to?

Answer 4

S47 and S20

Question 5

What is the general rule from R v Brown and others?

Answer 5

Consent will not be a defence to a crime under S20 (nor S47)

It is not in the public interest that people should cause others injury for no good reason.

Question 6

What are the exceptions to the general rule?

Answer 6

• Properly conducted sports and games
• Horseplay
• Tattooing/Branding
• Medical Treatment

Question 7

What does Aitken show?

Answer 7

For horseplay, V only needs to believe there is consent it does not matter if the consent is real as long as D intends no harm

Question 8

What does Wilson show?

Answer 8

‘Personal adornment’ - branding was compared to tattooing which was listed as an exception in Brown.

Question 9

What does Olugboja show?

Answer 9

Submission is not the same as consent.

Question 10

What are the 3 things to consider for if V actually consented?

Answer 10

1. Does V have capacity to consent
2. Was the consent genuine
3. Was there implied consent

Question 11

What does Gillick show?

Answer 11

A person has capacity to consent if they are ‘Gillick competent’. This means that V must have sufficient maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the nature and consequences of what they are consenting to.

Question 12

What does it mean for consent to be genuine?

Answer 12

V knows the nature of what is happening as well as all the risks and circumstances involved.

Question 13

What does Newland show?

Answer 13

V did not consent to what was actually happening.

Question 14

What is implied consent?

Answer 14

When it is assumed that there is consent from the circumstances. Wilson v Pringle.