In criminal prosecutions for medical assault, the jury should be directed on consent in terms of whether the patient consented to the nature and general character of the procedure actually performed, not in terms of the civil law concept of informed consent derived from Rogers v Whitaker. The civil concept of informed consent, which focuses on failure to warn of risks and alternatives, is inappropriate for criminal proceedings where the question is whether the patient's consent was vitiated by fraud or deception as to the nature of the act. The case also demonstrates that where a complainant's evidence of indecent touching during a medical examination lacks sufficient detail and certainty to exclude incidental touching as a reasonable possibility, the conviction will be set aside as unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.