-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Imagine...
- Thread starter sledger
- Start date
Burgey
Well-known member
Link to ACT Court of Appeal decision dismissing his appeal
Livas v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 54 (13 August 2015)
Seems the ACT Crimes Act specifically provides for consent being vitiated by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Livas v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 54 (13 August 2015)
Seems the ACT Crimes Act specifically provides for consent being vitiated by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Last edited:
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Going back to this definition (which obviously isn't the exact definition used in Aus law), I can only imagine the logic used is that the complainant in this was was so overwhelmed by the offer of financial gain that it destroyed her capacity to consent/make a free choice.
In the same way someone who is threatened with violence does not really have a free choice, I guess you could argue that someone who's economic situation is incredibly poor to the point of barely being able to survive does not have a "free" choice when told "If you do X I will pay you money".
Not that this necessarily happened in this case, I don't know if it did or not, but I guess that is how I would try to argue it if I had to.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Cheers, thanks for this. Will read later on.
It's interesting that the Act does this though. As the UK equivalent doesn't do anything like that, and the courts have ruled that the only types of misrepresentation that can destroy consent are those which relate to the nature of the act itself, or possibly your identity, in some situations.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yeah, I think I would generally agree with that limitation tbh.
Like with most things involving consent and the law, I guess the question that needs to be asked (given that 100% autonomy is not possible) is: how free does a person's decision need to be from external influences in order for it to be considered their own/autonomous?
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
tempted to complain to the institutional review board to see whether sledger's posts constitute attempts to research general public sentiment
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Ha, coincidentally, all of the coloured whiteboard pens appear to have been removed from the stationary cupboard this morning. Annoying.
We've got a bill that's been introduced recently which covers a range of things like decriminalising suicides and repealing marital rape immunity. One of the proposed changes is criminalising the procurement of *** where consent is obtained by deception or false representation.
I understand the (reported) intention is to cover stealthing and lying about STDs, but depending on how it's worded it may apply to the OP as well.
I understand the (reported) intention is to cover stealthing and lying about STDs, but depending on how it's worded it may apply to the OP as well.