Boxing - consent - assault?

cycleoin

Anyone have any interesting views on whether/when boxing as a sport crosses over into the realm of criminal assault? Any unusual/interesting caselaw would be very welcome!

Tom Young

Humm, looks like a mooting topic to me in tort. In fact I mooted on it. Check Volenti Non Fit Injuria O'Regan v RIAC (?). Pugilism!

Criminal context:

Non Fatal Offences Against the person. There is a mens rea and actus reus stated clearly in the 1997 act Ss. 2 and 3, you could cite this in court.

As usual with a topic or cases like this it will most likely hinge on the facts in the surrounding case, i.e., actively engaging in the sport etc.

Best of luck. Mark your bundle and make sure that you know your court etiquette!

Cases:
*snipped be author*

See: Irish Criminal Law Journal (2002) 12(3) ICLJ 15: Article: Boxing, the Common Law and the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 : Brian Foley

murphn24

Assault? Are you stupid? Its a sport! Next....

Tom Young

For your information it can amount to assault where consent is not present, then again judging by the way you replied with that cursory next your hardly versed in the law.

Assault. 2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

[GA] ( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

[GA] ( b ) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

[GA] without the consent of the other.

[GA] (2) In subsection (1)(a), "force" includes—

[GA] ( a ) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

[GA] ( b ) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

[GA] (3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

[GA] (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

murphn24

They got in the ring. If they didnt consent, at what point are you deeming it boxing? I refer you to the decision of the court of appeal in Leigh vs Jack 1879

Tom Young

R. v Coney [ (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 534 . ] Charges of common assault were made against several persons participating in and watching a prize fight. It was argued that the presence of consent negated the offence. The 11 member Court of Criminal Appeal was unanimous in holding prize fighting, but not necessarily boxing, illegal.

In Brown , Lord Jauncey said that Coney was authority for the proposition that:

“The public interest limits the extent to which an individual may consent to infliction upon himself by another of bodily harm and that such public interest does not intervene in the case of sports where any infliction of injury is merely incidental to the purpose of the main activity.” [ R. v Brown [1993] 2 All E.R. 75 , per Lord Jauncey, at 88A–B. ]


This is why its a moot topic by the way!

murphn24

I rest my case your honour. You must do night classes in law or somethin. Where did ya go? Portobello?

dK1NG

Jack Anderson wrote a book on this - "The Legality of Boxing".

http://www.qub.ie/home/TheUniversity/GeneralServices/News/ArchivesPressReleases-CampusNews/2007PressReleases/05-2007PressReleases/#d.en.68345

Queen's lecturer demands national boxing commission

A Queen's University law lecturer has called for a national boxing commission in the UK to regulate the sport.
In his new book, 'A Punch Drunk Love?', Dr Jack Anderson assesses the legal response to prize fighting and undertakes an analysis of the status of boxing in both criminal legal theory and practice.
Over 240 pages, the School of Law lecturer exposes boxing’s exemption from contemporary legal and social norms. By reviewing all aspects of boxing- historical, legal, moral, ethical, philosophical, medical, racial and regulatory Anderson’s book reaches a number of conclusions and:

suggests that the sport is extremely vulnerable to prosecution and might in fact be illegal under English criminal law.
outlines the physical and financial exploitation suffered by individual boxers both inside and outside the ring, suggesting that standard boxing contracts are coercive thus illegal and that boxers do not give adequate levels of informed consent to participate.
advocates a number of fundamental reforms, including possibly that the sport will have to consider banning blows to the head.
proposes the creation of a national boxing commission in the US and a similar entity in the UK.
Dr Anderson makes the point that by rewarding brain damage with points boxing is different from other sports and says: “The most efficient way to win a boxing match is by way of knock out. A knock out results in the temporary and acute infliction of brain damage. Cumulatively, blows to the head can result in chronic brain trauma. This book demonstrates that international medical evidence on the incidence of brain injury in boxing suggests that anything between two-thirds and three-quarters of professional boxers suffer from measurable brain damage as a result of their career.
“Professional boxing is also an administrative farrago consisting of an alphabet soup of international sanctioning organisations. Promoters, such as Don King, dominate the sport. The attitude of these impresarios to their clients, and to general ethical standards of business, is poor, as epitomised by the fact that promoters are not even required to provide insurance or pension provisions for their fighters.
“In conclusion, this book argues that it would be better if the sport of professional boxing was given a chance to save itself. In many ways, the solution is straightforward: the professional code should adopt many of the safety features of the amateur sport. Medical research demonstrates that amateur boxing is a commendably safe pursuit. Admittedly, the brain cannot tell the difference between a punch thrown for money and one thrown gratuitously. Even so, the provision of headgear, the closer monitoring of boxers’ weight and hydration levels and enhanced powers for medical officers to stop fights - all features of the amateur sport - would help the professional code address some of its more egregious faults.

“In the United States, Senator John McCain has long led a campaign for a Federal Boxing Commission. This book suggests that Britain should do likewise, and the government should establish a National Boxing Commission.”

Anderson’s research specialisation is the area of sports law and he has published widely and internationally on various aspects of the topic including issues of sports violence.

For further information please contact Eugene McCusker, Communications Office. : 028 9097 5320.

ENDS.


EDIT:
The Legal Response to Prize Fighting in Nineteenth Century England and America (2006) Vol 57 NILQ 265

Sports violence and the rule of law (Village magazine) - http://www.village.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1619

MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO? VIOLENCE IN SPORT AND THE CRIMINAL LAW http://www.islr.ie/Reviews/1998/sports_violence.php

cycleoin

Tom Young wrote: »

Humm, looks like a mooting topic to me in tort. In fact I mooted on it. Check Volenti Non Fit Injuria O'Regan v RIAC (?). Pugilism!

*cough* my cover is blown *end cough*

UrbanFox

1. Volenti non fit as far as civil law goes.

2. Would a boxing match not be a circumstance where the consent of the "victim" negatives the offence as far as criminal law goes ?

3. The line might be crossed if injury is wilfully inflicted outside the context of the boxing match.

Suppose that the bell goes to end round two and both fighters return to their respective corners for the one minute break. After 30 seconds the guy in the blue corner goes to the red corner and smashes his opponent in the face. Would there be an assault there ? I reckon that there would.

NoQuarter

i dont think so, i think even that would have to be looked at as perils of the job, for instance we see it when some boxers weigh in and suddenly they start killing each other, never heard of any of them get in trouble for it, i know where your coming from though!

johnnyskeleton

cycleoin wrote: »

Anyone have any interesting views on whether/when boxing as a sport crosses over into the realm of criminal assault? Any unusual/interesting caselaw would be very welcome!

When one boxer dies (manslaughter), where one boxer breaks the rules (and uses excessive/unexpected force), where one boxer becomes aware that the other boxer no longer consents, where one boxer innapproriately touches the other's gentials (sexual assault), where it is unofficial and may cause the spectators to fear for their safety (affray), etc. Consent to one type of physical contact is not consent to other types of physical contact.

The way I see it, where the physical contact is beyond what the other person could reasonably have anticipated when they agreed to begin the activity, it is an offence. So if you consent to a boxing match on the basis of no punches to the face, a punch to the face is assault.

Perhaps consent is better defined in the area of sexual offences - consent to kissing is not consent to groping, consent to groping is not consent to sexual intercourse, consent to one type of intercourse is not consent to another type of intercourse, and of course consent can be revoked at any stage.

NoQuarter

but surely consenting to a no face punching fight a person would assume the risk that its foreseeable that he will accidentally get hit in the face, you could think of it like nascar maybe, consenting to a race, not consenting to gettin rear ended and ending up with whiplash but its the risks that come with the sport!!

johnnyskeleton

king-stew wrote: »

but surely consenting to a no face punching fight a person would assume the risk that its foreseeable that he will accidentally get hit in the face, you could think of it like nascar maybe, consenting to a race, not consenting to gettin rear ended and ending up with whiplash but its the risks that come with the sport!!

This thread is about criminal assault. If one boxer unintentionally punches the other outside of the rules, the prosecution would need to prove that he was reckless. Intentionally going beyond the rules is, in my view, assault. For example, consenting to enter a boxing match is not consent to having your ear bitten off.

While your analogy may work in the civil sphere, it would should not apply in criminal cases. The argument would logically follow that if a woman consents to flirting/kissing, she is consenting to the risk of sexual assault/rape.