Consent As a Defence

"Wrongful" means an immoral act. But what is immoral? Devlin suggests immorality is what every right minded person considers immoral. Who is right minded? And why is adultery (with potential for harm) not illegal?

Wrongful means harmful or offensive to others. But what about when takes place in private?

Wrongful means harmful to others or the perpetrator. Conflict with individual autonomy. LC says cant consent to serious disabling injury, but exceptions apply if widely regarded as "beneficial", a term which has an element of normative structure.

"The mere brushing of some part of a person's body can be an assault."

Courts have left the interp of GBH to good sense.

Wounding is the breaking of the continuity of the skin.

17 year old girl caned for sexual gratification, only slight degree of harm but accepted was bodily injury. Couldnt consent to this as was inherently unlawful. "One person cannot licence another to commit a crime"

Cannot consent to a prize fight (which has no rules, disciplinary procedures etc) even if only minor injury

Street fighting. "It is not in the public interest that people should try and cause each other actual bodily harm for no good reason' Immaterial whether in public or private, cannot consent to street fights. Implies dont need a good reason and consent available up to BI? Properly conducted games and sports are an exception.

Homosexual sadomasochists. Majority: inherent acts of violence, crime against state which can't be sanctioned by consent, public interest doesnt require the forming of a new defence for sadoM. Shoehorned in and applied spectrum approach. Minority (Mustill): private sexual act,wrongly charged, rejected spectrum as too many exceptions, rejected notion of inherent unlawfulness, PP didnt require offence to be construed to inc sadoM activities.

Brandinf of initials. Distinguished Brown, despite needing hospitalisation and consent allowed.

Lighter fluid over gf's breasts, consent no defence in line with Brown. though Wislon was the greater harm.

Hand into vagina and twisted, Judge directed jury consent not available if satisfied actions likely (reckessness) or intended to cause BI, althought he acceptable level of sexual vigour has probably increased since Donovan.

Canadian case, sexual assault causing bodily harm. Acts of sexual violence are not socially approved activities and sexual gratification from causing pain gives way to public policy concerns. But they consent BECAUSE it is taboo and against PP?

Consent to risk of activity which is reasonably incidental of playing the game.