R v Barnes [2004]
Share
R v Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246 revolved around the appropriateness of bringing criminal proceedings against an amateur footballer who had seriously injured his opponent's leg during a football match. The appellant faced charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The question was whether it was right to bring criminal charges for injuries that happen during sports. The court decided that most sports have their own rules and ways of handling such situations. Criminal intervention is needed only when the actions are extremely serious and can be seen as criminal. The harm caused must meet the threshold of grievous bodily harm under Section 20.
The court emphasised that participation in sports implies an inherent acceptance of the associated risks, including the risk of injury or even grievous bodily harm. Implicit consent to such risks is presumed within the sporting context. However, if an act or injury occurs that goes beyond what could reasonably be considered acceptable in the context of the sport, implicit consent is deemed void, and the conduct may render court intervention.
In this case, the judge ruled that the player's actions, even if they were against the rules of the game, were not so serious as to be considered a crime. There was no evidence of malice or intent to harm, and the appeal was successful, leading to the removal of the conviction. The court acknowledged that what is acceptable contact in a sport depends on the specific circumstances.
The court found that the conduct, even if constituting a foul in the game, did not meet the criteria for criminal intervention under Section 20. As a result, the appellant's appeal was successful, and the conviction was quashed.
The question was whether it was right to bring criminal charges for injuries that happen during sports. The court decided that most sports have their own rules and ways of handling such situations. Criminal intervention is needed only when the actions are extremely serious and can be seen as criminal. The harm caused must meet the threshold of grievous bodily harm under Section 20.
The court emphasised that participation in sports implies an inherent acceptance of the associated risks, including the risk of injury or even grievous bodily harm. Implicit consent to such risks is presumed within the sporting context. However, if an act or injury occurs that goes beyond what could reasonably be considered acceptable in the context of the sport, implicit consent is deemed void, and the conduct may render court intervention.
In this case, the judge ruled that the player's actions, even if they were against the rules of the game, were not so serious as to be considered a crime. There was no evidence of malice or intent to harm, and the appeal was successful, leading to the removal of the conviction. The court acknowledged that what is acceptable contact in a sport depends on the specific circumstances.
The court found that the conduct, even if constituting a foul in the game, did not meet the criteria for criminal intervention under Section 20. As a result, the appellant's appeal was successful, and the conviction was quashed.
