A young person was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight at a recreation centre.
The accused struck the complainant with an uppercut while holding him by the neck, causing the loss of two front teeth.
The court examined the law governing consent to street fights, particularly as it applies to young persons, and determined that consent could be vitiated on public policy grounds when bodily harm beyond the trivial is intended and caused.
The court found the accused guilty, holding that the facts met the test established in Jobidon and Paice, and that the circumstances fell within the core policy concerns underlying the law on consent to fights.
