A2 Law: Consent

A2 Law: Consent

1. Law assumes a level of implied consent which is necessary for lawful conduct of day to day life

   • Areas of implied consent include: day to day physical contact/rough horseplay/ sexual relations/ lawful chastisement/ tattoos-piercings/medical examinations-surgery/ sporting contact/day to day physical contact e.g. crowded bus

2. The level of consent given even in areas accepted by the law must be considered along with the combination of the following factors

   • Impact of victim's age: generally ability to consent is reduced below 16 or 18.
     • Burrell v Harmer: Defence of victim's consent on a charge of GBH was dismissed, court ruled 12/13 year old boys could not consent to being tattooed
       • Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority: Claimed doctors breaking law by giving contaception advice to under 16s, (were aiding and abetting underage sex). S Court ruled that parent could continue to give consent until the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable them to understand fully wwhat's proposed.
         • Known as Gillick competence.
   • Sporting Contact: Law expands level of consent allowed when injury is obtained through sport.
     • R v Billinghurst: Claimed consent when punched V nowhere near ball in rugby match, defence accepted.
       • R v Barnes: D injures player's leg using an illegal tackle in ag ame of football defence accepted.
         • Court of Appeal states that defence of consent only excluded in Ds conduct goes outside what could be expected in the course of a normal game. Consent will only fail if actions were sufficiently grave as to be categorised as crminal.
   • Rough Horseplay: Courts willing to extend the legal effectiveness of consent in this circumstance
     • R v Jones: D and others played a game where they threw boys in the air and caught them. 2 boys suffered from a ruptured spleen and broken arm. were convicted of GBH initially, CoA quashed their convictions as victims consent to rough horseplay was a defence
       • There was no intention to injure
     • R v Aitken: Group of RAF officers were celbrating the end of a course, were drinking heavily. Decided to set fire to Vs flying suit, fire burned fiercer than expected V suffred severe burns, Ds charged with GBH
       • Conviction quashed on appeal, court decide that V can consent to accidental injury through rough horseplay. Moreover if D makes mistake, but genuinely believes V consented that is also a defence.
   • Informed Consent: Law requires that victim's consent was based on being fully informed of the facts as the defendant believed them to be
     • Consent granted without full knowledge, not legally acceptable.
     • R v Dica: Infected 2 women with HIV, knowing he was positive. Claimed defence of consent as they consented to sex with him, CoA decided that they had not consented to risk of HIv (not informed consent)