Reluctant consent (Record no. 8116)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02217nab a22002657a 4500
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION
control field 20250625151635.0
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 230419s2022 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 ## - CATALOGING SOURCE
Original cataloging agency AFVC
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name High, Anna
9 (RLIN) 10386
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Reluctant consent
Statement of responsibility, etc Anna High
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT)
Name of publisher, distributor, etc New Zealand Law Society,
Date of publication, distribution, etc 2022
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE
General note New Zealand Law Journal, October 2022, 310-324
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc In New Zealand sexual violence trials, the standard reluctant consent direction states that “consent which is given reluctantly and later regretted is nevertheless consent”. The concept of reluctant consent is a vestige of case law which held that consent can be given “unwillingly”, a contradiction in terms which relates to an outdated understanding of submission as consent. Today, reluctant consent is understood as a corollary of the “full, voluntary, free and informed” consent direction, which disallows for the possibility of unwilling consent. However, the idea of “reluctant consent” has continued to attract criticism (see, for example, Elisabeth McDonald Rape Myths as Barriers to Fair Trial Process (Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, 2020) at 297). Further, the Court of Appeal has recently suggested that the reluctant consent direction may need revisiting in light of the Supreme Court decision of Christian v R [2017] NZSC 145, [2018] 1 NZLR 315, which held that consent analysis must be grounded in statutory wording.<br/><br/>In this article, I interrogate the place of reluctant consent, both as a socio-legal concept and as the subject of jury directions, in sexual violence law. I argue that “reluctant consent” is both legally and socially logical, and not a contradiction in terms. However, there are two more substantive problems with the “reluctant consent” direction. (From the introduction). Record #8116
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element ATTITUDES
9 (RLIN) 70
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element CONSENT
9 (RLIN) 4690
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element CRIMINAL JUSTICE
9 (RLIN) 167
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element EVIDENCE
9 (RLIN) 237
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element LAW REFORM
9 (RLIN) 338
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element RAPE
9 (RLIN) 488
650 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element SEXUAL VIOLENCE
9 (RLIN) 531
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name NEW ZEALAND
9 (RLIN) 2588
773 0# - HOST ITEM ENTRY
Title New Zealand Law Journal, October 2022, 310-324
830 ## - SERIES ADDED ENTRY--UNIFORM TITLE
Uniform title New Zealand Law Journal
9 (RLIN) 4723
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Source of classification or shelving scheme Dewey Decimal Classification
Koha item type Journal article

No items available.