[ case ]
FACTS: R was a registered dental practitioner who was suspended from practice by the General Dental Council. While she was suspended, she carried out dentistry on a number of patients, one of whom complained to the police. She was subsequently charged with nine counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the OAPA 1961, s 47. At trial, the defence argued that there had been no assault or battery since V consented to the act. The prosecution argued that V's consent had been vitiated by R's failure to disclose that she was suspended. The trial judge's ruling was a remarkable (and brave!) departure from established authority. He ruled that a fundamental deception as to the attributes of the accused would vitiate consent. The case proceeded to trial. The accused was convicted and R appealed against her conviction. HELD: The Court of Appeal overruled the trial judge and held:
- Only a deception as to the nature or quality of the act or the accused's identity would vitiate consent.
- A deception as to the accused's attributes, status or qualifications would not vitiate consent.
Her conviction was quashed.