Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Consent (Valid Consent (Burrell v Harmer (Convicted of ABH arising from…
Consent
Valid Consent
Burrell v Harmer
Convicted of ABH arising from tattooing 2 boys aged 12 and 13. They "did not understand the nature of the act".
Tabassum
Charged with indecent assault as he falsely claimed to be carrying out a study into breast cancer - they believed he was medically qualified.
Dica
Did not tell woman he had HIV and had unprotected sex with them. Overturned decision in Clarence. Guilty s20.
-
Konzani
Had HIV and unprotected sex, but honestly believed the women knew. This was ignored and he was guilty s20.
-
Horseplay
Jones
6 school boys were conflicted of s20 after throwing a boy in the air, who fell to the ground and broke his arm/suffered a ruptured spleen. CoA held that they had consented to horseplay as no intention to cause harm.
Aitken
Drunk and decided to set fire to RAF officers wearing their fire-resistant clothing. They had done this to 2 officers and the fire had been extinguished without injury. However, the 3rd person sustained serious burns. They were convicted under s20. But acquitted as D believed that the officer had consented.
Richardson & Irwin
Dropped a student off a balcony when drunk. Were convicted of s20, however, were acquitted as they did not realise the risk not intended harm.
Bodily adornment
Wilson
At wines request, branded her bum with 'W'. It became infected, but, following the decision in Brown, it was classed as 'tattooing'. Acquitted.
Fisher
Carved her name onto the arm of her lover (cutting skin). He did not consent as she did it when he was sleeping. Guilty s20 wounding.
Adesanya
D cut her children's cheeks to fit with her Nigerian Tribal Custom. Not in the public interest - guilty.
Medical Treatment
Brown
5 appellants were convicted of various counts of ABH during consensual sadomasochist activities.The trial judge ruled that consent was not available. After appealing to CoA, they upheld the convictions due to public policy.
-
AG's Ref No 6 1980
Two youths decided to have a fight, which resulted in 1 of them suffering from a bleeding nose and bruising (ABH). The Judge directed the Jury that if D had consented then the injuries would not amount to ABH. He was acquitted. The Prosecution believed this was a wrongful acquittal based on a misunderstanding of the Law and referred the case to CoA. Lord Lane ruled that consent was not available as a defence, due to not being in the public interest that people should cause harm to one another for no good reason.
-