Sex - Case Laws Flashcards
R v KOROHEKE
The genitalia comprise the reproduction organs (interior or exterior). Include the vulva and labia both interior or exterior at the opening of the vagina.
R v GUTUAMA
Under the objective test the CROWN must prove that “No reasonable person in the accused shoes could have thought that (the complainant) was consenting.
R v KOROHEKE (Actual Case)
It is important to distinguish between consent that is freely given and submission by a woman to what she may regard as unwanted but unavoidable. For example, submission by a woman because she is frightened of what may happen to her if she does not give in or co-operate is not true consent.
R v FORREST AND FORREST
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be addressed by the Prosecution in proof of (victim’s) age.
R v COURT
Indecency means “conduct that right thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of (the complainant)
R v DUNN
Indecency must be judged in light of the time, place and circumstances. It must be something more than trifling and be sufficient to “Warrant the sanction of the law”.
R v LEESON
The definition of “Indecent Assault” is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency.
R v HARPUR
(The Court may) have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in questions stops…The defendant’s conduct (may) be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done…is always relevant, though not determinative.
R v NORRIS
If a person who is charged with Indecent Assault is able to establish that they honestly believed the complainant was consenting, they are entitled to be acquitted even though grounds of his belief were unreasonable.
R v KOROHEKE (What was the case about)
Gang rape, female did not say NO however they claimed that she consented as she didn’t say no.
Found that absence of not saying NO due to circumstances (fearing for life/safety) men found charged.
R v FOREST v FOREST (What was the case about)
Two men charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14 year old. At trial, girl provided birth certificate and gave evidence herself.
Men acquitted as Crown did not prove girls age
R V GUTUAMA (What was the case about)
Man 27 years, raping a 14 years girl following a period of consensual sex. He claimed he had RGB she was still consenting, prompting the Court of Appeal to clarify the objective test for “reasonableness”
R v COX (What was the case about)
Man was convicted of sexual violation for having sex/oral sex with young girl for 3years starting at 10years. He defence was that she had consented.
Court of Appeal found that due to age/maturity/understand the significance of the act - be in a position to make an rational or informed decision.
