OTHER CASE LAW Flashcards
What was held in R v N?
Held that the offence is sufficiently proved by penetration of the vulva by the penis … proof of penetration of the vagina is not required.
What was found in R v Kaitamaki?
The Court held that after he had penetrated the woman and then realises that she is not consenting but continues then that act of intercourse becomes rape.
What was held in R v Cook?
The Court held that to be effective, consent must be “real, genuine or true consent, and that it may be conveyed by words or conduct or both.”
What was held in R v Herbert?
Reluctant consent would not be rape.
The Court held that a true consent may be given reluctantly or hesitantly and may be regretted afterward, but if the consent is given even in such a manner, provided it is without fear of the application of force or the result of actual or threatened force, then the act of sexual connection would not be rape.
What was held in R v Clarke
The Court of Apeal held that bringing in a subjective approach to justify the accused’s belief will not be considered as relevant factors in a purely objective test.
What was held in R v Adams?
The material time when consent, and belief in consent, is to be considered is at the time the act actually took place.
The complainant’s behaviour and attitude before or after the act itself may be relevant to that issue but it is not decisive.
What was held in R v Isherwood?
The case involved a woman who had her drink spiked and was drugged by the offender. This had a disinhibating effect.
The Court held that proof that the drugs had a disinhibating effect was not incompatible with consent. Ultimately, it is a matter of degree.
In this case, the Court held that the woman was incapable of giving true consent.
Is it possible for the Crown to prove the complainant was not consenting even though they may have no recollection of the event itself?
Yes
What was held in R v Kim
In instances of s128A(3)or(4) occurring, it is not essential that there be evidence the complainant did not comply. As often the complainant will have very little memory of whether they consented or not (due to their intoxication or unconsciousness).
What was held by the Court of Apeal in R v Williams?
The Court of Apeal upheld the conviction for rape as the girl had only consented to what she believed to be a medical procedure.
(Also, unhelpful to the defence was that her singing voice didn’t improve much).
R v Wylie:
While deciding the elements of Attempt, what was held regarding ‘Sufficiently Proximate’?
That the defendant had gone beyond mere preparation.
What did the Court hold in R v Dunn in relation to the objective test for decency?
“the test for indecency is whether the conduct “offend[s] against a reasonable and recognised standard of decency…”
R v Herbert:
What did the Court of Appeal hold in relation to consent given by a 14 year old.
The consent would have given reasonable grounds for the defendant to believe there was full consent. Therefore, the appropriate charge should have been 134(1).
