Consent
People impliedly consent to the physical contacts of everyday ordinary life – Collins v
Wilcock
People also impliedly consent to life-saving or rescue actions involving contact – R v B
Consent is not available for ABH or GBH unless the harm was caused for a good reason –
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) a good reason includes properly conducted
games/sports, surgery, dangerous exhibitions
Good reason:
Games and sports – only a good reason if the harm is caused within the normal rules and
practice of the game, if the harm is caused in a way which goes beyond the normal rules and
practice of the game (something completely unexpected and not normal in that
game/sport) then consent won’t apply, (when the conduct is sufficiently grave to be
properly categorised as criminal, consent won’t apply) – R v Barnes
Teaching is not comparable to participation in a physical contact sport; therefore, teachers
do not impliedly consent to the risk of physical injury from their pupils – H
Surgery – a patient can lawfully consent to having an operation performed on them by a
surgeon, can consent to surgery, despite the fact that they will inevitably suffer bodily harm
during the operation – R v Barnes
Horseplay – injury caused during the rough and tumble of undisciplined play, consent may
be available – R v Jones & Others and R v Aitken & Others
Vigorous sexual activity – only amounts to a good reason if the injuries are sustained as an
accidental consequence of consensual sexual activity – R v Slingsby and R v Meachen
Tattooing and branding – an offence to tattoo a person under the age of 18 unless the
tattoo artist can prove they had reasonable cause to believe the person was over 18 – s 1
Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, therefore it is legal to tattoo anyone over the age of 18
despite the fact that the act of tattooing would, in other circumstances, amount to
wounding, by booking a tattoo appointment, being warned of the risks and the process, and
then paying, the person consents to have the tattoo (/wounding) done to them
R v Wilson – branding is no different to tattooing and considering consent is available to
tattooing, it is also available to branding
(R v Lee, New Zealand Court of Appeal – can possibly consent to having an exorcism
performed on oneself)
People impliedly consent to the physical contacts of everyday ordinary life – Collins v
Wilcock
People also impliedly consent to life-saving or rescue actions involving contact – R v B
Consent is not available for ABH or GBH unless the harm was caused for a good reason –
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) a good reason includes properly conducted
games/sports, surgery, dangerous exhibitions
Good reason:
Games and sports – only a good reason if the harm is caused within the normal rules and
practice of the game, if the harm is caused in a way which goes beyond the normal rules and
practice of the game (something completely unexpected and not normal in that
game/sport) then consent won’t apply, (when the conduct is sufficiently grave to be
properly categorised as criminal, consent won’t apply) – R v Barnes
Teaching is not comparable to participation in a physical contact sport; therefore, teachers
do not impliedly consent to the risk of physical injury from their pupils – H
Surgery – a patient can lawfully consent to having an operation performed on them by a
surgeon, can consent to surgery, despite the fact that they will inevitably suffer bodily harm
during the operation – R v Barnes
Horseplay – injury caused during the rough and tumble of undisciplined play, consent may
be available – R v Jones & Others and R v Aitken & Others
Vigorous sexual activity – only amounts to a good reason if the injuries are sustained as an
accidental consequence of consensual sexual activity – R v Slingsby and R v Meachen
Tattooing and branding – an offence to tattoo a person under the age of 18 unless the
tattoo artist can prove they had reasonable cause to believe the person was over 18 – s 1
Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, therefore it is legal to tattoo anyone over the age of 18
despite the fact that the act of tattooing would, in other circumstances, amount to
wounding, by booking a tattoo appointment, being warned of the risks and the process, and
then paying, the person consents to have the tattoo (/wounding) done to them
R v Wilson – branding is no different to tattooing and considering consent is available to
tattooing, it is also available to branding
(R v Lee, New Zealand Court of Appeal – can possibly consent to having an exorcism
performed on oneself)
