The interaction between the criminal law and non-contact sports. A look at concurrent jurisdictional issues and the defence of implied consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores when the criminal law should intervene in cases of non-contact sporting violence. The relationship between the criminal law and sporting bodies will be discussed. Sporting bodies can punish effectively. However, there are concerns surrounding the fairness of these punishments because of their commercial nature. The criminal law should intervene when it offers a more effective punishment. Once it has been established that the criminal law should intervene, this paper will explore the defence of implied consent. This paper recommends a test that looks at all of the circumstances of the action, taken from the Canadian case of Cey. This test balances the flexibility and uncertainty issues as well as complying with the New Zealand law relating to consent. This paper then explores when the defence should be removed when there is intentional infliction of harm. Due to the high public policy concerns, the defence should be removed in the majority of the instances of intentionally inflicted harm and always when grievously bodily harm is intentionally inflicted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".