The appellant appealed his conviction for anal rape. He said the incident had been consensual. He had administered a date rape drug. He said again that this had been consensual. The prosecution alleged that the injuries left were inconsistent with the manner of penetration suggested by the defendant. The judge had ruled that consent was no defence where a serious injury resulted.
Held: It could not in the circumstances be correct to hold as a matter of law that consent was no defence either to the charge under s. 20 or the charge of indecent assault, absent the necessary mens rea for these offences. The fact that serious injury had in fact occurred, or was objectively likely, did not mean that there was no defence at the time the ruling was given, even though there was ample evidence on which the jury could have concluded that the appellant had the necessary intention to cause injury. The pleas were therefore made on a ruling which was incorrect and the convictions on two of the three counts were quashed.
Thoma LJ, Bobbs J, Recorder of Newcastle
 EWCA Crim 2414
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Emmett CACD 18-Jun-1999
The defendant appealed against conviction after being involved in sexual activity which he said was not intended to cause harm, and were said to be consensual, but clearly did risk harm. On the first occasion he tied a plastic bag over the head of . .
Cited – Rex v Donovan CCA 1934
The defendant was convicted of indecent assault and common assault after caning a 17 year old female complainant for the purposes of sexual gratification. The complainant suffered actual bodily harm, though the defendant was not charged with an . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) CACD 1981
The court considered a reference on a point of law as to whether consent could be a defence to a charge of assault arising out of a fight in a public place to which the other party consented.
Held: Lord Lane CJ said: ‘It is not in the public . .
Cited – Regina v Court HL 1989
When considering whether an action constituted an indecent assault, the jury was to be asked whether ‘right-minded persons would consider the conduct indecent or not.’
Lord Ackner: ‘It was common ground before your Lordships, and indeed it is . .
Cited – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .
Cited – Regina v Boyea CACD 28-Jan-1992
The defendant was accused of having, with or without the consent of his victim, caused her physical damage by inserting his hand in her vagina and twisting it.
Held: ‘the extent of the violence inflicted . . went far beyond the risk of minor . .
Cited – Regina v Barnes CACD 21-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed against a conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm, after causing a serious leg injury in a football match when tackling another player.
Held: There was surprisingly little authority on when it was appropriate to . .
Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Cited – Regina v Slingsby Crwn 1995
The defendant penetrated the complainant’s vagina and rectum with his hand; she suffered cuts caused by a signet ring worn by the defendant; septicaemia developed and she died. The defendant was charged with manslaughter. The judge was asked to make . .
Cited – Regina v Wilson CACD 5-Mar-1996
The appellant was convicted of an offence under s.47. He had, with his wife’s consent, branded his initials onto her buttocks with a hot knife.
Held: Consensual activity within a marriage was capable of being a matter for criminal prosecution. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245412