GY
I posted on the other topic a few questions that in my mind null the consent issue.
I would argue that pressure "coercion" was applied i.e. why the lie detector?
Secondly it appears to me that neither the mum or the child were equipped to offer informed considered consent.
I doubt that either had fully understood or were capable of fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
KS etc were and I have no doubts pressure tactics to get what they wanted...a stunt that would gain ratings.

One could apply the reasonable man test...which reasonable man do you know would have allowed these predatory actions to effect their daughter.....I don't know any personally.
Although I am sure there would be some in the lower socio- economic areas (read education, conditioning and opportunity deprived).
In short there is a matter of capacity to give informed consent.
I do agree that it isn't that clear cut but consider their comparative experience intelligences and consumer law etc.

Finally torture can be defined as applying physical and mental coercion (pain /suffering) on to a person their without informed consent( nullified here).
To me the more subtle the greater is the duty of care.

People are rabbiting on, giving catechism readings about the evils of –torture – and, we have yet to agree on what constitutes torture.

And separate, and distinct, from the above –what was the definition of torture that Red Cross was using? –and did the interviewees all get to see that definition? [please don’t post me a link to the UNs definition –unless you can show it was the definition Red Cross used in the cited survey!]

Unless we clear up these issues, the whole discussion is futile –well!… it’s probably futile anyway, but, lets conduct this exercise in futility in an orderly fashion !

Anything is possible with conditioning such as that with the holocaust in relation to genocide and torture however, I believe that most human beings would not submit to torturing their fellow human beings even under trying circumstances.

Perhaps, unfortunately it is not normally these types that end up working for Defence forces or senior levels of government.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland in an interview with Kerry O'Brien about terrorism laws recalled the words of a Supreme Court Judge in Israel when he said words to the effect of:

"...terrorists can kill and maim and they can destroy property, but only we, by our response to terrorism, can destroy our institutions of governance and the soul of our community."

I think this quote is equally relevant to discussions on the practice of torture.

I view the best torture can be described is that it is involves a conduct, physical, verbal or otherwise that induces or otherwise causes harm upon an person which a FAIR MINDED PERSON would conclude in the circumstances prevailing to constitute torture.
.
As such, as I indicated previously threatening an innocent man with a term of imprisonment that he suffers a heart attack as much can be torture then physical harm.
.
A FAIR MINDED PERSON is to be taken the ordinary person in society who has no involvement in the act/conduct and has a balanced view of what is deemed appropriate in society.
.
It should be understood that mental torture, albeit not always possible to be observed nevertheless is a form of torture.
.
One could fill reams of paper listing all forms of torture but it is an ever expanding list and so never ending because there are always new ways found to use it.
.
The Internet is a clear tool to torture children to such extend that they end up committing suicide.
.
At times we may not even be aware that our conduct might amount upon torture to another person not because of the conduct we have on our own but in combination with conduct of others, even so we might be unaware of the conduct of others in that regard. A clear example is where a girl is receiving all kinds of emails that drives her to suicide even so taking one email upon its own context may not particularly be harmful but the combination of all emails have the effect of a mental torture.
.
Mental torture of all kinds is commonly exercised by us all even so we do not realise this ourselfs to be as such because the victim usually is the only one aware of it being torture.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Thank you for your attempts to define torture, though, I do see a few issues with your definition(s):

I recall seeing a documentary –made by persons who I’m sure many, including themselves, would consider very fair minded – amongst the examples of torture they listed were i) repeatedly standing in ones personal space, & ii) forcing someone to stand for long hours. I wondered at the time –and still do –whether that would leave State Rail open to a multitude of claims from commuters?

And “mental torture”, what a can of worms!
Plenty of scope for nagging partners to be indicted, there under?

And internet torture ( & by extension telephone, snail & email)
I can foresee stressed and abused customer service staff, running with that one.

I am sure you are well meaning --but sometimes the cure has unwanted side effects.

A more insidious form of torture is where a society is so straight-jacketed with abuse laws/concepts that they “ induce or otherwise cause harm”.
Where, the whole society is traumatised and deformed as a result … whom would we seek to prosecute in that instance?

Examinator, I think your definition of torture is so broad it undermines the legitimacy of the concept of torture. It's a bit like the Bringing Them Home Report into the Stolen Generation. By calling what happened genocide it undermined the report rather than advancing it.

Just because you get yourself into some embarrassing situations doesn't mean that your consent wasn't informed because if you had known where things would end-up you wouldn't have agreed in the first place. Who hasn't been in those positions.

It might be colloquially "torture" or even "murder" when you find yourself in the embarrassing situation, but not in any meaningful legal sense.