Consent Criminal Law
CONSENT
CANNOT CONSENT TO MURDER
Defence – available for non-fatals:
● If the victim consents to the use of force, then the D may be acting lawfully
● This means that consent is a justificatory defence 🡪 negates an actus reus element of
unlawfulness
For consent it must be shown that:
⮚ The offence is one where consent can operate as a defence
⮚ The person consenting was able to consent (of capacity)
⮚ Consent was actually given
⮚ The consent was valid (a true consent)
We consent to everyday jostling e.g. in a queue or nudged in a shop 🡪 there is an implied consent to
everyday jostling (Collins v Wilcock 1984 3 ALL ER 374 per Goff LJ) … “it is not in the public interest”
to hold people liable every time this happens
The general rule 🡪 confirmed in Brown 1993:
¬ Consent can be a defence to assault or battery which does not involve any injury amounting
to ABH or greater harm
o Donovan 1934 🡪 professor caned 17-year-old girl 🡪 argued that she consented to it
o Slingsby 1995 🡪 penetrated V with fingers wearing signet ring, which caused cut which
got infected and resulted in death
¬ Consent is not a defence if there is ABH or greater harm caused to the victim UNLESS one of
the public interest exceptions to the general rule applies:
Recognised exceptions:
Where there is good reason i.e. within the public interest, for allowing individuals to consent to
reasonable injury
1. Sporting activity
¬ Boxing matches
CONSENT
CANNOT CONSENT TO MURDER
Defence – available for non-fatals:
● If the victim consents to the use of force, then the D may be acting lawfully
● This means that consent is a justificatory defence 🡪 negates an actus reus element of
unlawfulness
For consent it must be shown that:
⮚ The offence is one where consent can operate as a defence
⮚ The person consenting was able to consent (of capacity)
⮚ Consent was actually given
⮚ The consent was valid (a true consent)
We consent to everyday jostling e.g. in a queue or nudged in a shop 🡪 there is an implied consent to
everyday jostling (Collins v Wilcock 1984 3 ALL ER 374 per Goff LJ) … “it is not in the public interest”
to hold people liable every time this happens
The general rule 🡪 confirmed in Brown 1993:
¬ Consent can be a defence to assault or battery which does not involve any injury amounting
to ABH or greater harm
o Donovan 1934 🡪 professor caned 17-year-old girl 🡪 argued that she consented to it
o Slingsby 1995 🡪 penetrated V with fingers wearing signet ring, which caused cut which
got infected and resulted in death
¬ Consent is not a defence if there is ABH or greater harm caused to the victim UNLESS one of
the public interest exceptions to the general rule applies:
Recognised exceptions:
Where there is good reason i.e. within the public interest, for allowing individuals to consent to
reasonable injury
1. Sporting activity
¬ Boxing matches
