H v Crown Prosecution Service [2010]
Share
H v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) [2010] EWHC 1374 (Admin), [2012] QB 257 addressed the issue of implied consent in the context of an assault by a student with ADHD against a teacher at a special needs school.
The defendant, a young student suffering from ADHD, assaulted a teacher at the school. The defence claimed that the assault had been impliedly consented to by the teacher due to the nature of the job.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasising that the mere fact that a job may involve the risk of physical harm does not imply consent to violence. The court explicitly rejected the analogy to implied consent in contact sports, stating that occupational risk is not equivalent to implied consent to the use of violence against individuals in their professional capacity. The court made a clear distinction between the inherent risks associated with certain occupations and the notion of implied consent to intentional acts of violence.
It is noteworthy to contrast this case with R v Barnes [2004], which dealt with the application of implied consent in the context of sports. The decision in H v CPS underscores the importance of distinguishing between the inherent risks of certain activities and the consent to deliberate acts of violence, even in occupations with recognised occupational hazards.
The defendant, a young student suffering from ADHD, assaulted a teacher at the school. The defence claimed that the assault had been impliedly consented to by the teacher due to the nature of the job.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasising that the mere fact that a job may involve the risk of physical harm does not imply consent to violence. The court explicitly rejected the analogy to implied consent in contact sports, stating that occupational risk is not equivalent to implied consent to the use of violence against individuals in their professional capacity. The court made a clear distinction between the inherent risks associated with certain occupations and the notion of implied consent to intentional acts of violence.
It is noteworthy to contrast this case with R v Barnes [2004], which dealt with the application of implied consent in the context of sports. The decision in H v CPS underscores the importance of distinguishing between the inherent risks of certain activities and the consent to deliberate acts of violence, even in occupations with recognised occupational hazards.
