H v Crown Prosecution Service [2010]

Court: High Court

Facts: The defendant, a young student suffering from ADHD, assaulted a teacher at a special needs school. The defence argued that the teacher had impliedly consented to the assault due to the nature of the job and the inherent risks involved in working with students with special needs.

Issue: Whether the teacher had impliedly consented to the assault by virtue of their professional role.

Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Key Judicial Statements: The court held that the mere fact that a job may involve the risk of physical harm does not imply consent to violence. The court explicitly rejected the analogy to implied consent in contact sports, stating that occupational risk is not equivalent to implied consent to the use of violence against individuals in their professional capacity.

💡 Leveluplaw: highlights the critical distinction between inherent occupational risks and consent to deliberate acts of violence. It underscores that professionals, even in high-risk environments, do not automatically consent to violence from those they serve. This ruling is significant in clarifying the limits of implied consent in contexts beyond sports, contrasting it with R v Barnes, which considered implied consent in the context of sporting activities.