AG Ref (6 of 1980) [1981] QB 715

• Two men agreed to have a fight and Defendant injured Victim.

• Defendant was charged with assault, but the judge directed that if it was in self-defence or Victim consented to being assaulted, then Defendant could be acquitted, which he subsequently was.

• CA allow the appeal

Lord Lane

• Argues that in general consent cannot negative the assault except where public interest determines otherwise.

• In this case it is against public interest that people should resolve their differences by fighting on the streets. Logically, it IS still in public interest that surgery, sport, etc. should continue and therefore consent in such circumstances DOES negative the assault

• (Unlike Ashworth, I think this is a good test- his objection is that it is unconvincing to say that trapeze artists are acting in the public interest.. However it is in the public interest to allow people to determine their own professions, even if it involves risk, while commercial value is also a matter of public interest. Therefore there is nothing “torturous” about Lord Lane’s reasoning).