- Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Aitken (1992)
Case Study: Consent in Assault
Citation: Aitken (1992)
Court: CA (Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Case Study: Consent in Assault
Citation: Aitken (1992)
Court: CA (Court of Appeal)
Facts:
- Defendants: RAF Officers
- Incident: At a party in the officers' mess, the defendants set fire to V, who was heavily intoxicated. V sustained severe burns.
- Charges: Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) - unlawful and malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm.
- Defense: The defendants claimed the act was "normal horseplay" and that V consented.
- Whether the defendant's belief in the victim's consent negates liability for assault under Section 20 of the OAPA 1861.
- The defendant is not guilty of an offense of assault if they genuinely believed that V consented to the activity.
- V's prior participation in horseplay activities during the evening could be interpreted as implied consent to the activity.
- The court held that the defendants genuinely believed that V consented.
- The defendant's conviction was quashed.
- Subjective Belief in Consent: This case highlights the importance of the defendant's genuine belief in consent, even if that belief is mistaken.
- Implied Consent: Prior conduct and context can be relevant in determining whether consent was implied.
- Horseplay and Consent: The case raises questions about the boundaries of acceptable behavior in the context of "horseplay" and the role of consent.
0 Comments