Melin, R v

Melin, R v

Where a complainant consents to a medical or cosmetic procedure only because of a positive misrepresentation that the provider is medically qualified, and would not have consented otherwise, such deception can vitiate consent as a matter of law if the professional status is integral to the provider's identity for the act in question. On the evidence, this was only established for one complainant, not both.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: Ozan Melin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction on one count quashed, sentence reduced on remaining count.
Legal Topics
Consent, Deception, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Professional Qualifications, Vitiation of Consent
Criminal Law Medical Law Consent Deception Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Professional Qualifications Vitiation of Consent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ozan Melin

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deception as to medical qualification vitiates consent for purposes of assault
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the basis of vitiated consent
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the facts

Ratio Decidendi

Where a complainant consents to a medical or cosmetic procedure only because of a positive misrepresentation that the provider is medically qualified, and would not have consented otherwise, such deception can vitiate consent as a matter of law if the professional status is integral to the provider's identity for the act in question. On the evidence, this was only established for one complainant, not both.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction on one count quashed, sentence reduced on remaining count.

Orders

  • Conviction on count 1 (Marcelle King) quashed.
  • Conviction on count 3 (Carol Kingscott) upheld.