lOMoARcPSD|805298
Tutorial work - semester 1 - Tutorial 7
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
TUTORIAL 7
DEFENCES
Reading
Clarkson & Keating, Chapter 4
1. “It is odd that one cannot consent to actual bodily harm in the course of
sadomasochistic sexual activity, but is able to consent to the risk of grievous
bodily harm in knowingly having sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected
person”.
Drawing on this statement, discuss when, if ever, you think conduct should be
criminalized despite the consent of the “victim”.
Cons
ent
Fors
omec ri
me s
,likerapeand s e
xualas s
ault
,c onsent(orlack ofit)isa
defini
ti
onaleleme
ntoftheoffe
nce.Forotheroffences
,li
keass
ault
,consent
canope rat
einc e
r t
ainci
rcumstance
sasade f
e nce.Thetype
sofc onduct
whe reconse
ntisvali
dareuncle
ar.
Thea
vail
abi
li
tyofconse
ntasde fencetoass
aultis
,asyouha veal
readys
een,
shape
dbyconsi
derat
ionsofpubli
cpol
ic
y/pr
iva
temor
ali
ty:
Brown [1994] AC 212
• Sado Masochistic floggings in homosexual context
• Majority held- where more than trivial injury was concerned the activity
needed to be in the ‘public interest’ for consent to be valid
Reasoning in Brown
• Templeman-participants could not foretell the degree of harm; behaviour not
essential to human happiness; danger of infection; such activities ‘breed and
glorify’ a ‘cult of violence’
• Jauncey-young men might be corrupted
• Lowry- the acts were not ‘conducive to family life’
A minority view
• Mustill- private morality is not a matter for criminal law
• Ask not whether the conduct is in the public interest, but whether there is a
public interest in criminalisation
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
Tutorial work - semester 1 - Tutorial 7
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
TUTORIAL 7
DEFENCES
Reading
Clarkson & Keating, Chapter 4
1. “It is odd that one cannot consent to actual bodily harm in the course of
sadomasochistic sexual activity, but is able to consent to the risk of grievous
bodily harm in knowingly having sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected
person”.
Drawing on this statement, discuss when, if ever, you think conduct should be
criminalized despite the consent of the “victim”.
Cons
ent
Fors
omec ri
me s
,likerapeand s e
xualas s
ault
,c onsent(orlack ofit)isa
defini
ti
onaleleme
ntoftheoffe
nce.Forotheroffences
,li
keass
ault
,consent
canope rat
einc e
r t
ainci
rcumstance
sasade f
e nce.Thetype
sofc onduct
whe reconse
ntisvali
dareuncle
ar.
Thea
vail
abi
li
tyofconse
ntasde fencetoass
aultis
,asyouha veal
readys
een,
shape
dbyconsi
derat
ionsofpubli
cpol
ic
y/pr
iva
temor
ali
ty:
Brown [1994] AC 212
• Sado Masochistic floggings in homosexual context
• Majority held- where more than trivial injury was concerned the activity
needed to be in the ‘public interest’ for consent to be valid
Reasoning in Brown
• Templeman-participants could not foretell the degree of harm; behaviour not
essential to human happiness; danger of infection; such activities ‘breed and
glorify’ a ‘cult of violence’
• Jauncey-young men might be corrupted
• Lowry- the acts were not ‘conducive to family life’
A minority view
• Mustill- private morality is not a matter for criminal law
• Ask not whether the conduct is in the public interest, but whether there is a
public interest in criminalisation
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
