Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Aitken

[1992] 95 Cr App R 304

Case summary last updated at 14/01/2020 18:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Aitken

 Some RAF pilots were taking part in horseplay to which V consented. During the horseplay he received serious burns. The judge gave directions on “maliciously” (if the Ds foresaw some harm) but did not direct on what was meant by “unlawful” except that it was beyond horseplay. Ds were convicted of GBH under s.20. CA allowed their appeals on the basis that D did consent and that consent to undisciplined, rough horseplay, such as that which V had been involved in throughout the night, was not itself unlawful. 

R v Aitken crops up in following areas of law