Is History Repeating Itself – Part 4a Article 1of 2

Foreword:  Nuremberg Code Number One, is the first of a set of ten codes, which provide clear and definitive principles essential to all elements of the Codes: 

“The Voluntary Consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

The Codes are an established set of rules intended to prevent the diabolical World War 2 (WW2) Human Experimentation, Torture, Starvation and Genocide committed by the Nazi Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons and Scientists, as well as countless other Germans and those who chose to side with the Nazis.  Many of these people were hanged following their trials held throughout Europe after the defeat of the Nazis. 

The Nuremberg Trials featured some of the most senior ranked Nazis in charge during WW2.  You might find it difficult to believe that the Codes are not legally enforceable, but any breach of these Codes, will be considered as evidence for a prosecution under Acts of Law specifically designed to prosecute War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. 

I intend to rely on the Nuremberg Codes and how it defines Consent in Part 2, the second and final article under the heading above, but firstly, let us look at how Consent is defined by the NHS, Crown Prosecution Service and an independent organisation – UK Says No More.  I have also included definitions of Coercion and Duress, which are relevant to Consent but not always a component of Consent. 

Below are two definitions of Consent:  The NHS version and the Legal version 

The following NHS definition of Consent, was taken from the NHS website at https://www.nhs.uk › conditions › consent-to-treatment.

Consent to NHS Treatment:  The decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family. 

Here we will look at the Statutory definition of Consent, which is from the Crown Prosecution Website and is defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 

Section 74 defines Consent as “if he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are: 

• Whether a complainant had the capacity i.e., the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.
• Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely and was not constrained in any way.

Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to Consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.

Prior to the 2003 Act there was no statutory definition of Consent, but the section 74 definition was commonly referred in pre 2003 Act cases as a guide to how the jury should approach the issue of Consent. 

The CPS definition appears to have been mostly brought into play re allegations of offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so I will not be considering Consent in terms of the offences within this Act, however, I will rely on its definition as a  benchmark’ of what is Consent when preparing Article 2 of 2:  Defining Consent, Coercion and Duress. 

Finally, the link below will take the reader to the ‘UK Says No More’ website, which contains a definition of Consent and Coercion:  https://uksaysnomore.org/learn/learn-sexual-violence/understanding-consent/ 

‘There are no grey areas when it comes to consent.’ 

A definition of Consent is’ when we agree by choice and when someone has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. If your body froze, unable to move or speak, you did not give Consent.’ 

‘If you said, ‘Yes’ to an act or activity because you feared for yours or your loved ones life or safety, you did not give Consent’  . 

Someone cannot give their Consent when they are: 

• Asleep
• Under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• Coerced
• Scared

Again, Consent is defined and contained within the parameters of allegations of sexual assaults.  However, I would like to draw your attention to the statement: 

‘There are no grey areas when it comes to consent.’

It is a very clear and undeniable fact that this statement should be unequivocally true, however, when criminal allegations are put to a jury for them to decide upon the issue of Consent, a ‘subjective mist’ can ascend due to the ‘human element’ based on the individual’s own experiences, prejudices and worldly perspectives. 

Now, take a look at several internet definitions of Coercion from various sites including Wikipedia. 

• Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way.  These actions may include extortion, blackmail, torture, threats to induce favours, or even sexual assault.
• In law, Coercion is codified as a Duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.
• Coercive behaviour is an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim. 
• The broad definition of Coercion is:  “The use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behaviour that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will the use of force to persuade someone to do something that they are unwilling to do.”