R v Gee

The defendant, the father of a four month old child, was charged with assault. The infant had been taken to a hospital suffering from a serious brain injury. The father was asked to explain the circumstances of the injury, but declined to do so. The prosecution argued that the father had caused the injury to the child, and as such had committed an assault. The defendant contended that there was no assault as the law did not recognise the concept of implied consent in this context. The court was required to determine whether the father could be held criminally liable for the assault, and if so, whether there was a legal basis for the jury to consider implied consent.

The court examined the nature of assault and whether the absence of consent by the infant could be considered in determining liability. It found that the common law offence of assault required an intentional act that caused actual bodily harm or apprehension of imminent harm. The court also found that the law did not recognise implied consent for conduct that would otherwise constitute an assault. However, it considered whether some conduct might be regarded as authorised, and concluded that this was not the case. The court ruled that the jury should be directed that the defendant could be held liable for assault if it was proven that he intentionally caused harm to the child.

The court held that there was no implied consent in this context, and that the defendant could be held liable for the assault. The court found that the father's actions in failing to seek medical attention for the child, and in providing a false explanation for the child's injuries, amounted to an assault. The court directed the jury to consider the evidence and determine whether the defendant was guilty of the offence. The court made no orders in relation to the defendant's liability, as this was a matter for the jury to decide.