Rape Flashcards
where does law for rape come from
Sexual Offences Act 2003
what is s.1(1) SOA 2003
s.1(1); a person(A) ommits offence if D -
(a) intentionally penetrates vagina/anus/mouth of another (B) with his penis
(b) B doesnt consent to penetration
(c) A doesnt reasonably believe B consents
what is s.1(2) SOA 2003
s.1(2); whether belief in consent is reasonable is determined in regard to all the circs, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents
what is the AR of rape
D penetrates B’s vagina/anus/mouth (conduct) +
B doesnt consent (circumstance)
what are the conduct elements of rape
AR; D penetrates B’s vagina/anus/mouth
MR;intention to penetrate
what are the circumstance elements of rape
AR; B doesnt consent
MR; D lacks a reasonable belief in consent
MR of rape
intention to penetrate (conduct)+
D lacks reasonable belief in consent(circumstance)
who can commit rape
men only
where is force to penetrate covered
s.2 + s.4 SOA 2003
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v R (1991)
marital rape
what is s.79(2) SOA 2003
penetration = continuing act from entry-withdrawal
what cases support s.79(2) (penetration as a continuing act)
-R v Kaitamaki; D realised after penetration that V wasnt consenting but continued, moment consent was revoked he satisfied AR for rape
-R v Leaver; confirms old law
what happened/ was the legal principle in R v Kaitamaki
-D realised after penetration that V wasnt consenting but continued
-moment consent was withdrawn he satisfied AR for rape
-conf in R v Leaver
what is s.79(9) SOA 2003 and give the case that supports it
-‘vagina’ includes vulva
-R v F (2002); gave broad definition to vulva
what is s.79(3) SOA 2003
-references to part of body surgically constructed (gender reassignment)
what are the 3 ways V’s non consent is determined
-s.76 Conclusive presumptions about non consent (cannot be rebutted by D)
-s.75 evidential presumptions about non consent (can be rebutted by D)
-s.74 general definition of consent
what is s.76(1) SOA 2003
-s.76(1); if proven D did relevant act + any of the circs specified in subsection (2) existed it is conclusively presumed:
(a)V did not consent to relevant act
(b)D didnt believe V consented to act
what are the circs in s.76(2) SOA 2003
(a) D intentionally deceived complainant as to nature or purpose of the relevant act or
(b)D intentionally induced the complainant to consent to relevant act by impersonating a person personally known to the complainant
what is s.76(2)(a) and the cases that support it
-s.76(2)(a); deception of nature/ purpose of act
-R v Williams; open air passage to improve singing
-R v Flattery; surgical operation
what happened / is the legal principle of R v Williams
-D said he was opening air passage to improve V’s singing
-V deceived as to nature/purpose of act
give 5 cases + legal principles about s.76(2)(a)
-R v Williams; help singing
-R v Flattery; operation
-Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority; sex without condom is same in nature as sex with condom
-R v Lineker; D didnt pay prostitute, V not deceived by nature
-R v Devonald; 16yo exposed himself online to 20yo woman who was actually ex-gf’s dad, s.76 applied
what happened/ is the legal principle in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
-sex without condom is the same in nature as with condom
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Lineker
-D didnt pay prostitute
-ct said not rape as not deceived in nature
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Devonald
-16yo exposed himself online to ‘20yo woman’ who was his ex-gf’s dad
-s.76 applied