Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.
If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.
CASES ON CONSENT
CONSENT TO ACTUAL BODILY HARM
R v Wilson (1996) Times Law Report March 5 1996
The defendant had been charged with assault occasioning a.b.h. contrary to
s47 of the O.A.P.A. 1861. The activity involved the defendant burning his
initials onto his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife because she had wanted his
name on her body. The Court of Appeal held that consensual activity between
husband and wife in the privacy of the matrimonial home was not a proper matter
for criminal investigation or criminal prosecution. The court believed that the
defendant had been engaged in an activity which in principle was no more
dangerous than professional tattooing. Thus, the court was of the opinion that
it was not in the public interest that his activities should amount to criminal
CONSENT TO RISK OF UNINTENTIONAL A.B.H.
R v Billinghurst  Crim LR 553.
During a rugby match and in an off-the-ball incident B punched an opposing
player, in the face fracturing the jaw. B was charged with inflicting grievous
bodily harm contrary to s20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The
only issue in the case was consent. Evidence was given by the victim that on
previous occasions he had been punched and had himself punched opponents on the
rugby field, and by a defence witness, a former International rugby player, that
in the modern game of rugby punching is the rule rather than the exception.
It was argued by the defence that in the modern game of rugby players
consented to the risk of some injury and that the prosecution would have to
prove that the blow struck by B was one which was outside the normal expectation
of a player so that he could not be said to have consented to it by
participating in the game. The prosecution argued that public policy imposes
limits on violence to which a rugby player can consent and that whereas he is
deemed to consent to vigorous and even over-vigorous physical on the
ball, he is not deemed to consent to any deliberate physical off the
The judge directed the jury that rugby was a game of physical
necessarily involving the use of force and that players are deemed to consent to
force “of a kind which could reasonably be expected to happen during a
game.” He went on to direct them that a rugby player has no unlimited
licence to use force and that “there must obviously be cases which cross
the line of that to which a player is deemed to consent.” A distinction
which the jury might regard as decisive was that between force used in the
course of play and force used outside the course of play. The judge told the
jury that by their verdict they could set a standard for the future. The jury,
by a majority verdict of 11 to 1, convicted B.
R v Jones (Terence) (1986) 83 Cr App R 375.
The defendants were convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on two
schoolboys, who had been tossed high in the air and then allowed to fall to the
ground by the defendants. The defendants’ evidence was that they regarded this
activity as a joke. There was some evidence showing that the victims, likewise,
so regarded this. The judge declined to direct the jury that if they thought
that the defendants had only been indulging in rough and undisciplined play, not
intending to cause harm, and genuinely believing that the victims consented,
they should acquit. On appeal, their appeals were allowed on the basis that
consent to rough and undisciplined horseplay is a defence; and, even if there is
no consent, genuine belief, whether reasonably held or not, that it was present,
would be a defence.
R v Aitken and Others  1 WLR 1066.
The three defendants and a man named Gibson were all RAF officers attending a
party to celebrate the completion of their formal flying training. During the
course of the evening the defendants had, in jest, tried to ignite the fire
resistant suits of two fellow officers. When G indicated that he was leaving the
party to go to bed, the defendants manhandled him and set fire to his fire
resistant suit. Despite the rapid efforts of the defendants to douse the flames,
G suffered serious burns. Although it was accepted that the defendants had not
intended to cause injury to G, the defendants were court martialled, and
convicted of inflicting GBH contrary to s20 of the Offences Against the Person
An appeal against conviction was allowed. The Courts-Martial Court of Appeal
held that the judge advocate should have directed the court to consider whether
G gave his consent as a willing participant to the activities in question, or
whether the appellants may have believed this, whether reasonably or not.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.