|
|
Cases for this
topic |
[ Back ] [ Next ]
|
Consent and Policy |
|
R v Brown and Others (1993) |
[Consent in ABH not relevant]
Sado-masochistic homosexuals. Courts will interfere, and liability did
occur, but not if it were a lawful act. Public policy, fear of
proselytisation, corruption, cult of violence and potential for serious
harm. See The Spanner Trust
for information about promoting sado-masochistic rights.
This case contrasts with
R v Wilson where a husband branded his wife's buttocks, at her
request.
|
|
R v Donavan (1934) |
[Public policy in assault]
Caning willing girl = assault.
|
|
Limited consent for battery
that causes injury |
Boxing is
an odd example, there is no legal argument that can actually justify in
law, as a matter of POLICY it is tolerated provided it does not
exceed the ‘rules of the sport’, for example bare knuckle fights.
Players do
not consent to assaults that are not all part of the game, as with biting
during rugby or boxing.
R v Johnson (1986)
R v Lloyd
[1989].
|
|
Other sports |
Most other
sports do not have as their primary intention to cause injury, and
therefore bumps and bruises ‘on the field of sport’ are an acceptable part
of the game.
They are 'manly diversions, they intend to give strength,
skill and activity, and may fit people for defence, public as well as
personal, in time of need' Foster’s Crown Law, (1792)
R v Billinghurst [1978].
|
[ Back ] [ Next ]
|
