Sarahs Consent to Sexual Intercourse - Essay Example

Sarah's thinking capacity was all jumbled up, due to the high emotional phase. To Sarah’s predicament, the tattoo act falls under section 18- offenses against the person act 1981. Richard committed a crime, which was wounding and causing serious bodily harm with an intention. In this case, Richard planned his intent of implicating harm to Sarah. Sarah’s approval of the tattoo meant harm to her body. The approval for the tattoo was not a defense against the crime committed by Richard (Murphy, 2007).

R v Wilson (1996) possibly R v Brown (1993)

R v Wilson and R v Brown are criminal cases concerned with the constitutional right of the state to get in the way of private consensual goings-on between adults. R V Brown was a criminal case involving sadomasochism between men who engaged in acts of violence against each other. Each involved in this case consented to the activity. The individuals genitally tortured themselves by branding their nipples, anus, testicles, and buttocks all in favor of sexual pleasure. This act carried on for a successful ten years until when they were accidentally discovered by the police. They were convicted with sections 47 and 20 of the OAPA 1861.

Regarding the R v Wilson case, the litigant was charged with assaulting his wife. This act falls under section 47 of the offenses against the person act, of 1961. The plaintiff admitted to branding his initials on the buttocks of his wife with a hot knife. In this case, Brown inflicted actual bodily harm on his wife. The wife gave her consent to this operation.

Replacement of s42 of the OAPA 1861 to section 39 of the CIA 1988

Section 42 of the OAPA 1861 affirmed that an attack is committed in the case of unlawful violence or violence committed to another person. This statement was revised by the CIA in 1988. The action of violence was clearly stated and under which circumstance this section was relevant? Violence committed against a person under unlawful means is a crime as this will endanger the life of the victim.

Sarah’s consent to sexual intercourse
Despite Sarah’s approval of sexual relations, she was unaware of Richard’s HIV status. She did not consent to be infected with HIV. Richard committed the offense as he consciously transmitted HIV to Sarah. This was with the knowledge that it would result in a life-threatening condition for Sarah. According to this case in matters about R v Clarence and R v Dica, while it is appropriate in terms of sexual consent, it does not address the matter of acceptance of the endangerment of grievous body impairment. This may be a result of sexual relations by modes of sexually transmitted infections. In both cases, the defendants did not inform their partners that they had HIV. The partners also were ignorant of the status of their sexual partners. Sarah was ignorant of Richard’s sexually transmitted disease condition. Sarah consented to sexual intercourse, but she did not consent to the risk of the viral infection. For a sexual partner’s consent to the dangers of contracting HIV to be valid; the approval of the other partner ought to be informed consent (Card et al, 2012).

Hair cutting issue
Sarah was not happy that Richard cut her hair; she opted to remain quiet on this topic. She weighed her love emotions for Richard and remained silent. Sarah did not consent to her hair being cut; this is regarded as actual bodily harm to Sarah. According to DPP v Smith (Michael Ross) in 2006, the defendant cut the hair of his former girlfriend. This was viewed as an assault on the victim based on the fact body harm was inflicted on the victim. This is in consideration of the fact that hair makes up the human anatomy.

Liability as parties to the crime committed
Richard was liable for the crime of committing bodily damage to Sarah. He was also liable for infecting Sarah with HIV. Sarah was liable for being ignorant of sexual condition infection of Richard. Both parties are principles of the crime committed. Steve and Paul were triggered to commit their crime by the decisions made by Sarah. Sarah is the main party connected to the criminal activities made. This is because of her bad decisions. Paul is liable for the crime committed as he was an accomplice. Murder and manslaughter involve criminal responsibility. The verdict of murder or manslaughter relies on the verdict of the judge.

Transferred malice
According to this case study, there was transferred malice. Richard was not harmed his friend Mark was harmed. The intention of the crime was transferred to Mark instead, who paid for the plans that were meant to be imposed on Richard. According to the law, the intent is transferred to the intentional harm, and violators are prosecuted as necessary. In the case of R v Gnango, criminal law was brought about by joint accessory accountability. In the aspect of transferred malice, two or more individuals unite in committing a criminal act. In this circumstance, there is the essence of joint principles (Herring, 2012). Read More