https://openlegalquestions.com/Recent content on Open Legal QuestionsHugoen-GBhttps://openlegalquestions.com/about/Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000https://openlegalquestions.com/about/<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2> <p><em>Open Legal Questions</em> (OLQ) is a free, public repository of open legal questions in English law. Our aim is to help practitioners and judges identify and ultimately resolve these open questions.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref">1</a></sup> Each entry provides an overview of an open question, illustrative fact patterns, relevant authorities, and suggestions for further reading.</p> <p>OLQ currently focuses on criminal law. We hope to expand to further areas of law in the future.</p> <h2 id="people">People</h2> <p>OLQ was founded in 2026 by <a href="https://www.jamesmanwaring.com/">James Manwaring</a>.</p>https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/deceptions-quality/Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/deceptions-quality/<em>Tabassum</em> (2000) claimed that deceptions as to the &lsquo;quality&rsquo; of an act could vitiate consent to touching. But other authorities suggest that only deceptions as to the nature of the act or the identity of the actor can vitiate consent.https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/assault-omission/Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/assault-omission/In <em>Fagan</em> (1969), the High Court claimed that &lsquo;a mere omission to act cannot amount to an assault&rsquo;. But subsequent High Court cases doubted this position.https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/malicious-wounding/Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000https://openlegalquestions.com/questions/malicious-wounding/OAPA ss.20 &amp; 18 prohibit &lsquo;malicious wounding&rsquo; or inflicting GBH. Were courts correct to interpret this to require only recklessness as to some harm?