## Facts

- The case involved an amateur football match in which the defendant, Mr. Barnes, committed a late tackle on an opponent, resulting in a serious leg injury.
- The referee deemed the tackle dangerous, judged it against the rules, and sent Mr. Barnes off.
- Mr. Barnes was subsequently charged with causing serious harm.
- The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the injuries sustained in this sporting context could give rise to criminal liability, despite participants’ assumed consent to the usual risks.

## Issues

1. Whether assumed consent to the normal risks in sports precludes criminal liability for injuries caused during play.
2. What criteria determine when conduct in sport exceeds lawful play and constitutes a criminal offence.
3. Whether Mr. Barnes's actions met the threshold for criminal responsibility.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal ruled that criminal liability for injuries in sport arises only when the conduct is sufficiently grave to be considered criminal.
- The Court identified relevant factors for assessing lawfulness of conduct: the nature of the sport, the level of competition, the nature of the act, degree of force used, risk of injury, and the intention of the player.
- A high threshold applies: not every breach of the rules leading to injury will result in criminal liability.
- In Mr. Barnes's case, the tackle was deemed careless but not criminal, leading to the conviction being overturned.

## Legal Principles

- Participation in sport involves implied consent to normal risks and minor injury, but not to deliberate harm or reckless disregard for safety.
- Consent does not operate as a blanket defence for all injuries in sport.
- Criminal responsibility requires conduct exceeding the boundaries of acceptable play, with intent or serious recklessness.
- The sporting context, level of competition, and players’ intentions are critical in determining criminal liability.
- The ruling clarified that standards of consent and liability may differ between amateur and professional levels based on the sport’s intensity.

## Conclusion

_R v Barnes_ clarified the boundaries of criminal liability in sport, holding that participants are not criminally responsible for ordinary incidents of play but may be liable where conduct goes beyond what is reasonably accepted, with careful attention to context, intent, and risk of injury.


R v Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246