The court reached a strange decision regarding a drunken belief in consent in the case of [ case ]. Here, the defendants were university students. After drinking at a student union bar they decamped to a flat belonging to one of their friends, the victim. Horseplay ensued during which the defendants lifted and dropped the victim over a balcony where he fell a distance of 10–12 feet, sustaining injuries.
The defendants were charged under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 20. The defendants were convicted and appealed against their conviction. The Court of Appeal upheld their appeal and quashed their convictions on the basis that there had been misdirection by the trial judge. Their Lordships stated:
- that if the jury were satisfied that V had in fact consented to the accidental infliction of injury, this would be a defence; and
- that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the defendant believed that V consented, even if the defendants wrongly believed that V consented due to their intoxication!
See also the case of R v Aitken [1992] 1WLR 1006, which came to a similar conclusion.