International Law

R. v. DeCoste

A couple of guys got into an argument in a pub and decided to take it outside. Mr. DeCoste punched his opponent in the chin, sending him to the ground where he hit his head on the pavement and was knocked unconscious. At trial Mr. DeCoste was acquitted because the Crown had not shown an intention on his part to cause bodily harm. A decision upheld on appeal (pdf file).

The Crown argued that the trial judge’s finding that intention to cause bodily harm had not been proven was unreasonable. (Case law holds that in order to vitiate consent, bodily harm must be both caused and intended.) Common sense, after all, would ask whether it is possible to engage in a fist fight with no intention to cause bodily harm. I think if you asked the man on the street they would say that it probably is not. The law, however, seems somewhat settled now that it is. As held here:

While the court should discourage fights it is clear that a person can consent to the application of force by another and until a finding is made that the accused intended to cause bodily harm that consent permits punches to the head. Most fights involve an attempt to strike the other person in the head. That should be expected when one consents to a fist fight.

I think there are good reasons for making consent available as a defence to charges of assault in such situations. I just don’t think the way we do it makes a lot of sense.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on October 07, 2008 (boomark / email).