Chapter 13: Sexual Offences - Rape Flashcards
What is the origin for sexual offences? What is the Act for this
All the offences under sexual offences are statutory based under the - Sexual Offences Act 2003
Mainly focused on 2 sections
* Section 1 SOA 2003 - rape
* Section 2 SOA 2003 - assault by penetration
What was the Act replaced by the current Sexual Offences Act 2003?
Part 1 of the SOA 2003 makes many changes to the sexual crime laws in England & Wales
- Almost completely replacing the Sexual Offences Act 1956
What are the 4 overviewing points for the offence of rape?
- An indictable offence
- Max - life imprisonment
- Basic intent crime
- Drunkenness is not a defence
What is the authority that gave the definition of rape?
“The Wrongness of Rape” - Oxford Essay in Jurisprudence [2000]
- “Rape, in the pure case, is the sheer use of a person… Rape is humiliating even when unaccompanied by further affronts because the sheer use of a person, and in that sense the objection of a person, is a denial of their personhood. It is literally dehumanising…”
Do all rapes involve violence?
Not all rapes are accompanied by violence
Rape is a crime against sexual autonomy. What matters most is consent
What is the Act that governs the law of Rape?
What are the 4 elements of Rape?
Section 1 Sexual Offences Act 2003
1) A person (A) commits an offence if:
- a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with the penis;
- b) B does not consent to the penetration; and
- c) A does not reasonably believe B consents
2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regards to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents
intentionally (MR)
penetrates (AR),
(b) AR,
(c) MR
What is Penile Penetration?
1st element (AR)
Penetration is not defined in the Act, but Section 79(2) provides that penetration is a continuous act
What is the case for penile penetration?
1st element
R v B [2006]
Facts
- D convictedd of rape by forcing V to perform oral sex
What are the 2 cases stating that penetration is a continuous act?
Kaitamaki [1985]
Cooper and Schaub [1994]
Kaitamaki [1985]
Contionous act
Facts
- D thought V consented but then later knew that she was not consenting
- Continued to have sexual intercourse
Held
- Convicted of rape
Cooper and Schaub [1994]
Continuous act
Held
- Penetration and therefore, rape could also occur where there is failure to withdraw (Section 78)
- Penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal
What is the second element ‘V did not consent’?
2nd element (AR)
The critical element for rape is consent, without it, penetration is merely not criminal
Consent is the explicit expression of intimacy
What is intention to penetrate?
3rd element (MR)
2 types
- Direct intent
- Oblique intent
What is the case for intention to penetrate?
3rd element
R v Gabbai [2019]
R v Gabbai [2019]
intention to penetrate
Issue
- Prosecution must prove that there was 1) no consent to penetration and that penetration was 2) intentional
Facts
- D penetrated the V’s anus without consent
Takeaway
- This shows that the prosecution not only has to prove consent
- But also intention to penetrate
Note
- D could have penetrated the wrong part on accident
- Could be intoxicated (no intention)
What is ‘D did not reasonably believe that V was consenting’
4th element (MR)
Whether the jury (reasonable person) would believe, in such circumstances that the V was consenting to penetration (objective test)
- To consider D’s personal characteristics and beliefs
What is the provision that determines reasonable belief?
What are the 3 circumstances to consider?
4th element
Section 1(2) - determining reasonable belief
- Having regarded all the circumstances including the steps taken
3 circumstances to consider
- D does not always have to ask V directly for consent (“do you consent?”)
- If D has taken steps to ascertain if V consents
- Characteristics - age, mental capacity, previous relationships, sexual experience, other characteristics which may affect D’s ability to understand the nature of V’s behaviour
What is the case for ‘D did not reasonably believe that V was consenting’
4th element
R v B [2013]
R v B [2013]
did not reasonably believe
Issue
- COA had to consider whether D reasonably believed that the V was consenting
Facts
- Forced V to have oral sex
- out that the D had mental illness
- Her was delusional that he was a healer with special powers
- He believed he was obliged to have intercourse with his partner
Held
- But COA felt that, the evidence more then so, showed that his view does not show that he believed that the V was in fact consenting to sexual intercourse
Takeaway
- NOT looking at what D believed
- But the reasonable person’s point of view
What are the 3 provisions for presumptions for lack of reasonable belief?
Section 76
Section 75
Section 74
when going through presumptions, start with the most hardest to prove (section 76 > section 74)
What is Section 76 presumption of lack of reasonable belief?
1) Conclusively presumed that -
- a) V did not consent to the relevant act, and
- b) That the D did not believe that the V consented to the relevant act
2) In circumstances that -
* a) D intentionally deceived the V as to nature or purpose of the act
* b) D intentionally induced V to consent, impersonating a person known personally to the V
What are the 6 lists of rebuttable presumptions under Section 75 presumption of lack of reasonable belief?
1) If sexual intercourse is engaged in these circumstances, and D knows. It is presumed that there is no consent
- Using violence or causing complainant to fear immediate violence against the complainant
- Causing complainant to fear the violence was used or would be immediately used against another person
- Complainant was unlawfully detained
- Complainant was asleep
- Complainant has physical disability which made him/her unable to communicate consent
- Someone caused the complainant, without complainant’s consent, to take a substance which is capable or can or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered
What is Section 74 presumption of lack of reasonable belief?
Introduction
- “A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”
- To distinguish - between choice and submission
Submission
- When the freedom and choice is taken away from the V - then there is no consent
Example
- If a wife merely consents reluctantly to a husband demanding sex, it is still consent regardless
- Or out of a sense of duty to her partner
What are the 2 types of presumptions for lack of reasonable belief?
What are the respective provisions under each?
Conclusive presumption (can’t argue) - when D deceived the V of his identity or his act
- Section 76 of the SOA 2003
Rebuttable presumption - absent of consent is presumed (no reasonable belief) in the absence of evidence to the contrary
- Section 75
- Section 74
What are 8 cases for Section 76 SOA 2003?
1) Williams (1923)
- Rape (deceived)
- D had sex due to the fact she wanted to improve her singing voice (deveived for the purpose of the act)
2) Tabassum (2000)
- Rape (deceived)
- The 3 Ds had sex as they thought it was for medical purposes (deceived as to the quality)
3) R v Linekar (1995)
- No rape (sexual in nature)
- C (prostitute) knew what the nature of sex was for sexual gratification
4) Jheeta [2007]
- No Rape (sexual in nature)
- C knew the purpose of the act was to have sex with the D even though she was threatened imprisonment
5) Elbekkay (1995)
- Deceiving identity (Section 76(2)(b))
- The V could not have consented as she thought D was her BF (actually twins)
6) R (Monica) v DPP
- No rape
- C had sex with an undercover police, knowing the nature of the act
7) Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority (2011)
- Rape (vitiated consent)
- The fact that V told D to wear a condom or she would not ha ve sex was a fundamental consenting factor to the sexual act
8) EB (2006)
- No rape
- D’s HIV status would vitiate consent to physical contact, but not to the sexual intercourse specifically
What are the 2 cases for Section 75 SOA 2003
R v Ciccarelli (2012)
- Circumstance D - complainant was asleep
R v Kamki (2013)
- Circumstance F - substance was given which may stupify or overpower the complainant
R v Ciccarelli (2012)
Section 75 SOA 2003
Facts
- A person had sex with complainant who is asleep at the time
Note
- It is presumed that there is no consent
- However, can be rebutted if D provides sufficient evidence
- If there is enough evidence that shows there is no way to find reasonable belief - the question can be withdrawn from the jury
Lord Judge CJ
- The general burden of proof is on the prosecution, but the defendant had to adduce some evidence ‘beyond the fanciful or speculative to support the reasonableness of his belief or her consent.’
Circumstance D - complainant was asleep
R v Kamki (2013)
Section 75 SOA 2003
Facts
- Complainant was intoxicated
Held
- “A woman can have the capacity to make a choice to engage in sexual activity, even when she has had a lot to drink obviously. Alcohol can make people less inhibited than they are when they are sober and obviously everyone is free, we are all free to decide how much to drink and whether to have sex or not. However, if through drink a woman has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse or to engage in sexual activity of another sort, she would then not be consenting.
Takeaway
- Meaning that a drunken intent is still an intent (Groak [1999])
- Intoxication is not a good defence (DPP v Majewski; DPP v Beard)
- Where a person had something to drink, they are still likely to be able to make a decision
Circumstance F - substance was given which may stupify or overpower the complainant
What is the case for Section 74 SOA 2003
Submission
R v Kirk (2008)
R v Kirk (2008)
Section 74 - submission
Facts
- D caused the V to submit into having sex with in order to get money needed by the young and homeless V to buy food
Held
- Submission (not consent)
- COA upheld conviction of rape
- On grounds that V had “no choice” (he could not have consented)
Takeaway
- Where it is more of a necessity (rather than, reluctant consent) - it is rape
