Decision in R v Barnes [2005] 1 W.L.R 910

Is the decision in this case only restricted to cases concerning injury which is sustained in a regulated sporting match or can it be extended to training matches also?
Thanks

Reply 1

Rust Cohle

I assume the same principle of consent would apply.

Reply 2

jazraix

Original post by Rust Cohle

I assume the same principle of consent would apply.

Do you think you could therefore use cases such as r v brown to state 'consent is no defence to a charge of bodily harm' and it is irrelevant that the r v barnes case presumes criminal law wouldnot engage where bodily injury was sustained during the course of a sporting event

Reply 3

Rust Cohle

Not entirely sure what you're asking but it seems like you want to know on what grounds is consent is available for bodily harm, right?

Original post by jazraix

...'consent is no defence to a charge of bodily harm'

In AG Ref No.6 of 1980 it was held that consent is only available for bodily harm (s47/20/18 OAPA) if it falls under a public policy exception.

Original post by jazraix

...and it is irrelevant r v barnes case presumes criminal law would not engage where bodily injury was sustained during the course of a sporting event

R v Barnes is relevant though as it used to illustrate one of the public policy exceptions stated in AG Ref 6 1980: "properly conducted games and sports." It also states that "horseplay" is an exception too. Even if V did not consent. D only needs to hold the belief of consent. e.g R v Jones, R v Aitken.

R v Brown is used to illustrate that sadomasochistic acts specifically (not bodily harm as a whole) cannot give rise to defence of consent as it not under the public policy exceptions.

Reply 4

jazraix

Original post by Rust Cohle

Not entirely sure what you're asking but it seems like you want to know on what grounds is consent is available for bodily harm, right?

In AG Ref No.6 of 1980 it was held that consent is only available for bodily harm (s47/20/18 OAPA) if it falls under a public policy exception.

R v Barnes is relevant though as it used to illustrate one of the public policy exceptions stated in AG Ref 6 1980: "properly conducted games and sports." It also states that "horseplay" is an exception too. Even if V did not consent. D only needs to hold the belief of consent. e.g R v Jones, R v Aitken.

R v Brown is used to illustrate that sadomasochistic acts specifically (not bodily harm as a whole) cannot give rise to defence of consent as it not under the public policy exceptions.

Thank you for your help. What I wanted to know was whether a case such as r v brown or some of the ones you have just mentioned could be use to argue against the following ground:
' the decision in r v barnes is restricted to cases concerning injury sustained during regulated sporting matches'

As I am really struggling on the best possible way of constructing an argument against this with appropriate authorities. (1

Reply 5

Rust Cohle

Original post by jazraix

Cases that relate to sporting events specifically:

R v Coney: The defendants were engaged in prize fighting. It was held that prize fighting in public was unlawful, notwithstanding the consent of the individuals involved.

Supports Barnes decision as it's not a prize-fighting properly conducted/regulated sport. It's essentially brawling which isn't it public interest so no exceptions here would apply.

Judge held: "...the injuries given and received in prize-fights are injurious to the public, both because it is against the public interest that the lives and the health of the combatants should be endangered by blows, and because prize-fights are disorderly exhibitions, mischievous on many obvious grounds. Therefore the consent of the parties to the blows which they mutually receive does not prevent those blows from being assaults."

R v Billinghurst: A rugby player punched another player during a match in an unprovoked attack. Whilst the defendant argued that punching was common place during rugby matches, it was outside the rules of the game and thus the victim could not be said to have consented to being punched.

This supports the decisions in Barnes and AG Ref 6 1980 as the D here operated way beyond the norms of the sport so it wouldn't be "properly conducted".

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

lazolarf

Thanks for the responses,

I have a ground of appeal which is also, as jazraix stated

' the decision in r v barnes is restricted to cases concerning injury sustained during regulated sporting matches'

and i am arguing FOR this statement and I am trying to prove that the decision is only restricted to REGULATED sporting matches and doesn't extend to training matches.

I shall take into consideration the consent element but was wondering where else to look in terms of arguing for the relevant submission.

Thanks