Consent

Consent

This defence can only be used for Assault or Battery offences except for some situations, it has limited and controlled applications. However, in Attorney General's Reference (No.  6 of 1980), it was held that "where two people fight,  the blows inflicted can amount to battery and that the unlawfulness cannot be denied by one party that the other consented to the fight" .

The first rule that needs to be fulfilled for a successful pleading of consent would be that the alleged victim's consent must not be obtained through deception or if it  was,  then the deception must not have been such as to alter his/her perception of the nature and quality of the act that is complained of as in R v Richardson,  R v Tabassum. Also,  in R v Olugboja,  consent must be positive not through fear or submission.

The second rule would be the defence can only be pleaded on the crimes Assault or Battery unless in these circumstances;

Sports - In R v Billinghurst,  it was held that in sports where physical contact is involved,  players will have implied consent to harm or injuries as long as the physical contact is within rules in the sport.

Rough horseplay -  In R vs Jones (or R v Atkins) ,  it was held that consent can be used as a defence in situations where the defendant has no intention to cause injuries.  In R v Richardson and Irvin,  the defendant can use consent if his or her victim was consenting to run the risk of personal injury,  even  if it arises from a mistaken belief and from intoxication.

Surgery -  Includes tattooing and body piercing.  In R v Wilson,  it was held that the victim consented to the act and harm suffered by her as she actually instigated the act and the husband did not have any aggressive intent.

Consent may exists initially but have been negated or withdrawn  prior to the actions of the defendant which actually caused injury.

If consent is successful,  the offence against the defendant will be invalidated.