KIDNAPPING BY DECEIT R v Cort [2003] 3 WLR 1300; [2004] 4 All ER 137 (CA)

The nature of consent, and its ambit operation as a criminal law defence, remains somewhat unclear (see De Wet en Swanepoel Strafreg 4ed (1985) 94). This is not surprising, given the fact that assessment whether consent present largely determined on basis public policy. Unlike other justification grounds which indicate that, all things considered, conduct in question was right thing to do (eg defence), “embodies recognition autonomy person (‘victim’) involved, if agrees there should be no offence” (Ashworth Principles Criminal Law 3ed (1999)331). Recognizing defence involves taking individual will into account, allowing individuals “to assume those consequences they took account when adopted decision; is, permitting them incorporate these course their lives” (Nino Ethics Human Rights (1991) 180). It clear allows complete disposal over her property, but does recognize life by another. More difficult questions arise relation can violation bodily integrity, particularly area sport andmedical treatment Burchell (2005) 333-338). A significant question, central discussion follows, apparent complainant excluded. Though it settled induced force or threats recognized for purposes (Burchell 341), position with regard fraud excluded (Van Oosten Labuschagne “Bedrieglike Voorstellings Toestemming die Strafreg” 1977 Jure 80 81). issue discussed below, light case R v Cort.