Is it legal to fight?

noubliezjamais

A weird question but at the start of this month, two lads in my college got into a fight, one punched the other in the jaw in the bathroom and then while the principal was trying to break it apart in the mall, scratched the other. One is 17 the other 18

I've heard conflicting things about fighting. One is that it's legal if both parties consent, the other is that once people are adults, they can both be charged regardless.

I've gotten into one "altercations" which wouldn't necessarily be constituted as a fight but more of as an assault. That was when I was 15.

The story that brought this question was coming across a journal article where a cork man with autism was jailed for 4 months after striking his mother. Is that different from a fight?

The Specialist

noubliezjamais wrote: »

A weird question but at the start of this month, two lads in my college got into a fight, one punched the other in the jaw in the bathroom and then while the principal was trying to break it apart in the mall, scratched the other. One is 17 the other 18

I've heard conflicting things about fighting. One is that it's legal if both parties consent, the other is that once people are adults, they can both be charged regardless.

I've gotten into one "altercations" which wouldn't necessarily be constituted as a fight but more of as an assault. That was when I was 15.

The story that brought this question was coming across a journal article where a cork man with autism was jailed for 4 months after striking his mother. Is that different from a fight?

Assault is assault, depends on how one party or the other wishes to paint the encounter.

coylemj

Quoting the first post when you are the first responder is a bigger crime than if you are in a pugilistic encounter where both parties are willing participants.

Samuel T. Cogley

Section 2 Assault and 3 Assault causing harm can be consented to, otherwise there would be no boxing, nor contact sports. Section 4 assault causing serious harm can't be consented to. Other offences, probably of a public order nature, could be an issue though.

IIRC there was a decision made on the back of a European Arrest Warrant a few years back that called consent in to question academically if nothing else.

OP should look up R v Brown :pac:

dudara

coylemj wrote: »

Quoting the first post when you are the first responder is a bigger crime than if you are in a pugilistic encounter where both parties are willing participants.

While this is undoubtedly very annoying, some posters don’t realise they are doing it due to view they are using or how they are accessing Boards. The best thing to do is report the post so that the mods can snip it out and free up the space.

Lmklad

Yes it is illegal, regardless of consent or age (unless as stated above it is a recognised, organised event) - Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

Affray.

16.—(1) Where—

(a) two or more persons at any place (whether that place is a public place or a private place or both) use or threaten to use violence towards each other, and

(b) the violence so used or threatened by one of those persons is unlawful, and

(c) the conduct of those persons taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at that place to fear for his or another person's safety,

then, each such person who uses or threatens to use unlawful violence shall be guilty of the offence of affray.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a threat cannot be made by words alone;

(b) no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the place where the use or threat of violence occurred.

(3) A person shall not be convicted of the offence of affray unless the person intends to use or threaten to

GM228

Lmklad wrote: »

Yes it is illegal, regardless of consent or age (unless as stated above it is a recognised, organised event) - Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

Affray.

16.—(1) Where—

(a) two or more persons at any place (whether that place is a public place or a private place or both) use or threaten to use violence towards each other, and

(b) the violence so used or threatened by one of those persons is unlawful, and

(c) the conduct of those persons taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at that place to fear for his or another person's safety,

then, each such person who uses or threatens to use unlawful violence shall be guilty of the offence of affray.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a threat cannot be made by words alone;

(b) no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the place where the use or threat of violence occurred.

(3) A person shall not be convicted of the offence of affray unless the person intends to use or threaten to

Affray does not apply if both parties agree like for example to a S2 assault which STC pointed out (STC you can't consent to a S3 assault either), such agreement does not necessarily have to be an organised event.

In relation to the R vs Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 case mentioned, it's not really relevant in the case of for example a S2 assault here where statute recognises consent.

Lmklad

Think we’re going to have to disagree. Affray does not require a complaint from the participants unlike assault.

GM228

Lmklad wrote: »

Think we’re going to have to disagree. Affray does not require a complaint from the participants unlike assault.

An essential ingredient of affray is that the violence used is unlawful, consentual assault is lawful which creates a valid defence.