As far as I understood from reading the judgement, the main concern in this case was that the defendants were giving the victims alcohol and drugs before the victims consented. So, one could argue drunken consent is not consent, even if later the victims still consented. At the time when they 'consented' they were highly intoxicated. In addition, all victims were rather young when compared to the older male defendants. Invasion of privacy may not always be justified, but in this case the House of Lords appeared in the right. Had the victims not been intoxicated at the time, the outcome may have been rather different. I should also add that R v Brown went before the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in 1997, and the ECHR AGREED with the House of Lords. They also ruled that Brown's sado-masochistic actions in that case were... Not ideal.
I totally agree with the ruling because anyone who consents to such an act might not be mentally healthy or might not have the mind-capacity to make such a decision and that's one of the reasons euthanasia is still prohibited in the UK.
A T in case the defendant has mental health issues, the person will have to me evaluated by the mental health team and if so, normally two reports from practitioners will need to be prepared. In this case, the matter will depart from the criminal justice venue and the sentence/fitness to plead will be governed by the mental health act. The mind capacity for any criminal offence known as mens rea is a different issue.
The law shouldn't be interested in whether the 'kind of person' who consents to it 'tends' to be mentally unhealthy, it should be asking whether the defendants in this case actually are of sound mind. And if they are, should they be charged simply because the act they engaged in MIGHT have a loose statistical association with mentally unwell people who have nothing to do with them? I don't think so.
As far as I understood from reading the judgement, the main concern in this case was that the defendants were giving the victims alcohol and drugs before the victims consented. So, one could argue drunken consent is not consent, even if later the victims still consented. At the time when they 'consented' they were highly intoxicated.
In addition, all victims were rather young when compared to the older male defendants.
Invasion of privacy may not always be justified, but in this case the House of Lords appeared in the right. Had the victims not been intoxicated at the time, the outcome may have been rather different.
I should also add that R v Brown went before the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in 1997, and the ECHR AGREED with the House of Lords. They also ruled that Brown's sado-masochistic actions in that case were... Not ideal.
You are doing a fantastic work! Keep rocking
Aphrodite Hadjipanayi thank you :)
you are amazing also i looooove that chain werkkk gurl
thank you :)
Great case but could you please do a video on the criticisms on the r v brown case?
Hi Anna, do you have any particular criticism in mind?
I totally agree with the ruling because anyone who consents to such an act might not be mentally healthy or might not have the mind-capacity to make such a decision and that's one of the reasons euthanasia is still prohibited in the UK.
A T in case the defendant has mental health issues, the person will have to me evaluated by the mental health team and if so, normally two reports from practitioners will need to be prepared. In this case, the matter will depart from the criminal justice venue and the sentence/fitness to plead will be governed by the mental health act. The mind capacity for any criminal offence known as mens rea is a different issue.
The law shouldn't be interested in whether the 'kind of person' who consents to it 'tends' to be mentally unhealthy, it should be asking whether the defendants in this case actually are of sound mind. And if they are, should they be charged simply because the act they engaged in MIGHT have a loose statistical association with mentally unwell people who have nothing to do with them? I don't think so.
Great work, keep on going
shamitmz thank you 🙏
Excellent, thank you
Jayne Tayler thank you :)
Jayne Tayler thank you :)
So interesting !
Elias kontogiorgos thank you so much joining us in this video.
what does "public policy" in law means?
thanks
Luat su Thu Doan thank you for joining us :)
very interesting
LearnX stay tuned for the next one