![]() ![]() In January, a Windsor man was avoided prison after unintentionally killing his younger brother in a back-yard wrestling fight. We have seen how you cannot rely on the defence of consent in the event of someone intentionally causing another person serious or non-trivial bodily harm? But what someone gets hurt accidentally in a fist fight, ie. He was, therefore, found not guilty of assault with a weapon or simple assault. The Crown failed to prove the deceased man had not consented to the fight and that the accused had not been acting in self-defence. In this case, an accused became involved in a fight during which he swung a hammer, and hit another man, eventually causing his death. This means the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an absence of consent on the part of the victim. The burden of proof in assault cases is on the Crown. So if a person has been knocked out or in any way decides to stop the fight, any further violence is considered a crime. So while you can consent to a fist fight, once a person has lost the fight or the fight continues beyond the point of non-trivial physical contact, it is pursuant on the winner to stop the fight. The judges found: “The accused, by continuing to pummel the victim after he knew the victim was unconscious, knowingly acted beyond the ambit of the victim’s consent.” This ruling established that consent could not be used as a defence for causing serious or “non-trivial” bodily harm. The Supreme Court ruled “there are limitations on the extent of harmful conduct to which one may validly consent and thereby bar conviction for assault.” The appeal was dismissed and the manslaughter charge was upheld. ![]() The Court of Appeal decision was then appealed at the Supreme Court which was tasked with deciding whether the absence of consent is an element that must be proved by the Crown in assault cases or whether limitations could be placed on consent in certain circumstances. The trial judge’s decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which instead found the accused guilty of manslaughter. The trial judge held that the victim’s consent to a “fair fight” negated an assault. The accused was charged with manslaughter and at the original trial, he was found not guilty. He was taken to the hospital where he later died. The victim rolled off the hood and lay limp. The accused carried on and, in a “brief flurry”, struck the victim repeatedly on the head, even after realizing he was unconscious. They both agreed to continue the fight outside.Īfter waiting outside in the parking lot, the accused punched the other man in the head, knocking him backwards onto the hood of a car. The accused was challenged by the other man to a fight in the bar but it was broken up. The accused had been arguing with another man in a bar in Ontario. Jobidon offers an example of where the line is drawn when it comes to consent in violent offences. The landmark Supreme Court of Canda ruling R. If someone causes someone else bodily harm in a street fight and they intended to do it, there can be no consent. Consent, however, does not extend to any intentional bodily harm. In the eyes of Canadian law, a consensual fight is not an assault because both parties accept there will be some physical contact. In Canada, you can consent to a fist fight. If two people consent to a street fight, do they effectively excuse each other from any culpability in the event someone is hurt? A street fight by its very nature is dangerous. If you follow this line of thought, a person cannot really be blamed for any harm resulting from a fist fight. A risk that either you or the other person could be hurt. If you enter into a fist fight, it could be argued that in doing so you acknowledge there is an inherent risk. Consent may be used as a defence but only extends so far. However, this does not mean that if there is consent, such as a street fight situation, the accused will always escape punsihment. In other words, it must be proven that the assault was committed without the consent of the other person in order to secure a conviction. But what about street fights? If the other person consents to a fight can you expect to be treated any differently? If someone is hurt or killed in the process, is this different from an unprovoked attack in the eyes of the law?Īs we know from the earlier blog, a key element of the offence of assault is an absence of consent. In an earlier blog, post we explored different types of assault. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |