SEX Flashcards
SEXUAL VIOLATION BY RAPE
128(1)(A) CA 1961
- A PERSON
- RAPES
- ANOTHER PERSON
A PERSON DEFINED AS
ACCEPTED BY JUDICIAL NOTICES OR PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SEXUAL VIOLATION DEFINED AS
ACT OF A PERSON WHO
A) RAPES ANOTHER PERSON OR;
B) HAS UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER PERSON
RAPE DEFINED AS
-PENETRATION OF A PERSONS PENIS TO ANOTHER PERSONS GENITALIA
A) WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT TO THE CONNECTION
B) WITHOUT BELIEVING ON REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT PERSON B CONSENTS TO THE CONNECTION
> SEXUAL VIOLATION
>RAPE
>PENETRATION
> SEXUAL CONNECTION
> GENITILIA
> CONSENT
PENETRATION DEFINED AS
-INTRO TO THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE IS ENOUGH TO EFFECT A CONNECTION
SEXUAL CONNECTION DEFINED AS
A) CONNECTION INTO THE GENITALIA OR ANUS OTHER THAN FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
i) A PART OF THE BODY OF ANOTHER
ii) AN OBJECT HELD OR MANIPULATED BY ANOTHER
B) CONNECTION BETWEEN MOUTH OR TONGUE TO PERSONS GENITALIA OR ANUS or
C) CONTINUOUS CONNECTION OF A OR B
GENITALIA DEFINED - CASE LAW
KOROHEKE
- REPRODUCTION ORGANS (INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR)
- VALVA, LABIA (INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR) AT THE OPENING OF THE VAGINA
CONSENT DEFINED AS
- CONSCIOUS AND VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT TO SOMETHING DESIRED OR PROPOSED BY ANOTHER
WHAT MUST THE CROWN PROVE IN TERMS OF CONSENT
- THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT CONSENT AND
- THE OFFENDER DID NOT BELIEVE THE COMPLAINT WAS CONSENT or
- IF THE OFFENDER DID BELIEVE THEY WERE CONSENT, THE GROUNDS FOR SUCH BELIED WERE NOT REASONABLE
CONSENT DEFINED - CASE LAW
GUTUAMA
- UNDER THE OBJECTIVE TEST, CROWN MUST PROVE THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON IN THE ACCUSED’S SHOES COULD HAVE THOUGHT THE COMPLAINANT WAS CONSENTING
ANOTHER PERSON DEFINED - RAPE
THE PERSONS BIOLGICAL GENDER IS NOT RELVENAT
WITH ANOTHER PERSON - SEXUAL CONNECTION DEFINED
- ROLES ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN TERMS OF WHO IS PENETRATED AND WHO DOES THE PENETRATING
A PERSON DEFINED AS - SEXUAL CONNECTION
- GENDER NEUTRAL OFFENCE
- ‘PERSON’ GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE BY THE JUDICIAL NOTICED OR PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
HAS UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONNECTION DEFINED AS
- NO CONSENT TO THE CONNECTION
- WITHOUT BELIEVING ON REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT PERSON B CONSENTED TO THE CONNECTION
> SEXUAL CONNECTION
> PENETRATION
> CONSENT
SEXUAL VIOLATION BY UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONNECTION
128(1)(B) CA
- A PERSON
- AS UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONNECTION
- WITH ANOTHER PERSON
ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL VIOLATION
129(2) CA
- A PERSON
- ASSAULTS ANOTHER PERSON
- WITH INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL VIOLATION OF THE OTHER PERSON
ASSAULTS ANOTHER PERSON DEFINED AS
ASSAULT:
- ACT, INTENTIONALLY, APPLYING OR ATTEMPTING TO APPLY FORCE, TO THE PERSON OF ANOTHER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THREATENING BY ACT OR GESTURE TO APPLY SUCH FORCE TO THE PERSON OF ANOTHER, IF THE PERSON MAKING THE THREAT HAS OR CAUSES THE OTHER TO BELIEVE ON REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT HE HAS THE PRESENT ABILITY TO EFFECT HIS PURPOSE
PERSON:
- JUDICIAL NOTICE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
-MUST BE A PERSON OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT
WITH INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL VIOLATION OF THE OTHER PERSON
MUST BE PROVED AT THE TIME OF ASSAULT: - DEFENDANT INTENDED TO HAVE SEXUAL CONNECTION - COMPLAINANT DID NOT CONSENT -DEFENDANT DID NOT BELIEVE ON REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS CONSENTING > SEXUAL VIOLATION >SEXUAL CONNECTION >CONSENT >PERSON
SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH CHILD UNDER 12
132 CA
132(1) = HAS
- A PERSON
- HAS SEXUAL CONNECTION
- WITH A CHILD
132(2) = ATTEMPTS
- A PERSON
- ATTEMPTS TO HAVE SEXUAL CONNECTION
- WITH A CHILD
132 (3) = INDECENT ACT
- A PERSON
- DOES AN INDECENT ACT
- ON A CHILD
UNDER 12 SEXUAL CONDUCT - NOT A DEFENCE
- CANNOT SAY YOU BELIEVED THEY WERE OF OR OVER 12
- CANNOT SAY THE CHILD CONSENTED
WITH A CHILD DEFINED AS
- PERSON UNDER 12
GENDER NEUTRAL OFFENCE. CAN BE AGAINST A BOY OR GIRL
SEXUAL CONDUCT UNDER 12 - CASE LAW
FORREST AND FORREST
“THE BEST EVIDENCE POSSIBLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION IN PROOF OF THE VICTIMS AGE
ATTEMPTS TO HAVE SEXUAL CONNECTION DEFINED AS
ATTEMPS (72 CA)
- EVERYONE
- WHO HAS AN INTENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
- DOES OR
- OMITS AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING HIS OBJECT
- IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT
- WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS POSSIBLE TO COMMIT OR NOT
> SEXUAL CONNECTION
NO DEFENCE
DOES AN INDECENT ACT DEFINED AS
INDECENT ACT (2 CA)
- ONE PERSON DOES AN INDECENT ACT ON ANOTHER PERSON WHETHER HE OR SHE:
A) DOES AN INDECENT ON WITH OR ON ANOTHER or;
B) INDUCES OR PERMITS THE OTHER TO DO AN INDECENT ACT ON WITH OR ON HIM OR HER
INDECENCY - CASE LAW
COURT
“CONDUCT THAT RIGHT-THINKING PEOLE WILL CONSIDER AN AFFRONT TO THE SEXUAL MODESTY OF THE COMPLAINANT”
DUNN
- INDECENCY MUST BE JUDGED IN LIGHT OF THE TIME, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
- MORE THAN TRIFLING AND BE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE SANCTION OF THE LAW
SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A YOUNG PERSON UNDER 16
134 CRIMES ACT 1961
134(1) = HAS SEXUAL CONNECTION
- A PERSON
- HAS SEXUAL CONNECTION
- WITH A YOUNG PERSON
134(2) = ATTEMPTS
- A PERSON
- ATTEMPTS TO HAVE SEXUAL CONNECTION
- WITH A YOUNG PERSON
134(3) = DOES INDECENT ACT
- A PERSON
- DOES AN INDECENT ACT
- WITH A YOUNG PERSON
SEXUAL CONDUCT UNDER 16 - 134 CA
(4) CANNOT BE CONVICTED IS MARRIED AT TIME
5) YOUNG PERSON CANNOT BE CHARGED AS PARTY TO THE OFFENCE IF PERSON COMMITTING OFFENCE WAS OF OR OVER 16
DEFENCE TO 134 CRIMES
SEXUAL CONDUCT UNDER 16:
- TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO FIND OUT IF YOUNG PERSON OF OR OVER 16
AND
- BELIEVED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS AT TIME THAT THEY WERE OF OR OVER 16
AND
- THE YOUNG PERSON CONSENTED
INDECENT ASSAULT
135 CRIMES ACT 1961
- A PERSON
- INDECENTLY ASSAULTS
- ANOTHER PERSON
INDECENTLY ASSAULT DEFINED AS
ASSAULT DEFINITION
135:
- REQUIRES PROOF OF ASSAULT
- A GENTLE CARESS MAY BE SUFFICE
-INCLUDES ATTEMPTING
- INCLUDES THREAT BY ACT OR GESTURE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDECENCY
- CANNOT BE ACCIDENTAL - HAVE TO PROVE INTENDED
INDECENT ASSAULT CASE LAW
LESSON
- DEF OF ASSAULT ACCOMPANIED WITH CIRCUMSTANCE OF INDECENCY
MUST PROVE ALL:
- INTENTIONALLY ASSAULTED COMPLAINANT
- CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOMPANY THE ASSAULT WERE INDECENT
- REASONABLE PERSON WOULD FIND INDECENT
- DID NOT CONSENT
- DEFENDANT DID NOT HONESTLY THINK THEY WRRE CONSENTING
INDECENT ASSAULT CASE LAW
LESSON
- DEF OF ASSAULT ACCOMPANIED WITH CIRCUMSTANCE OF INDECENCY
MUST PROVE ALL:
- INTENTIONALLY ASSAULTED COMPLAINANT
- CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOMPANY THE ASSAULT WERE INDECENT
- REASONABLE PERSON WOULD FIND INDECENT
- DID NOT CONSENT
- DEFENDANT DID NOT HONESTLY THINK THEY WRRE CONSENTING
INDECENT ASSAULT CASE LAW
NORRIS
- IF PERSON CHARGE CAN PROVE THEY HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS CONSENTING CAN BE ACQUITTED EVEN IF GROUND OF HIS BELIED WERE UNREASONABLE