Sexual Offences Flashcards
Sexual Violation by Rape liability
Sexual violation by rape Section 128(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961
- a person
- rapes
- another person
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection liability
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection Section 128(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961
- a person
- has unlawful sexual connection
- another person
Assault with intent to commit sexual violation liability
Assault with intent to commit sexual violation Section 129(2) Crimes Act 1961
- a person
- assaults
- another person
- with intent to commit sexual violation of the other person
Sexual conduct with a child under 12 liability
Sexual conduct with a child under 12
Section 132, Crimes Act 1961
- a person
(1) has sexual connection with a child
(2) attempts to have sexual connection with a child
(3) does an indecent act on a child
Sexual conduct with a young person under 16 liability
Sexual conduct with a young person under 16
Section 134 Crimes Act 1961
- a person
(1) Has sexual connection with a young person
(2) Attempts to have sexual connection with a young person
(3) Does an indecent act on a young person
Indecent Assault liability
Indecent Assault
Section 135 Crimes Act 1961
- A person
- Indecently Assaults
- Another person
Rapes definition
Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B’s genitalia by person A’s penis
(1) Without person B’s consent to the connection
AND
(2) Without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection
Penetration definition
Introduction to the slightest degree is enough to effect a connection
Genitalia definition
Genitalia includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to naturally occurring male or female genitalia (whether the person concerned is male, female, or of indeterminate sex).
Penis definition
Penis includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to a naturally occurring penis (whether the person concerned is male, female, or of indeterminate sex).
Unlawful sexual connection definition
Person A has unlawful sexual connection with person B if person A has sexual connection with person B
(1) without person B’s consent to the connection
AND
(2) without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.
Sexual connection defined
(a) Connection effected by the introduction into the genitalia OR anus of one person, other than for genuine medical purposes, of:
(i) a part of the body of another person;
OR
(ii) an object held or manipulated by another person;
OR
(b) connection between the mouth or tongue of one person and a part of another person’s genitalia or anus
OR
(c) the continuation of the connection described in A or B
What must be proved in all cases of sexual violation
- there was an intentional act by the offender involving sexual connection with the complainant
AND - the complainant did not consent to the sexual act
AND - the offender did not believe the complainant was consenting
OR - If he did believe she was consenting, the grounds for such a belief were not reasonable
Proving penetration
- The complainant’s evidence
- Medical examination, including physical injuries and DNA evidence
- The defendant’s admissions
R v Koroheke
The genitalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior… they include the vulva and the labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina
Mouth or Tongue
In the case of oral sexual connection, it is not necessary for there to be penetration; any touching of a person’s genitalia or anus with another person’s mouth or tongue is sufficient.
Continuation defined
Continuation captures situations where sexual activity is commenced consensually, but consent is later withdrawn
Subjective and Objective tests
The crown must prove that:
- The complainant did not consent to the sexual act (subjective test)
- The offender did not believe the complainant was consenting (subjective test)
- If he did believe she was consenting, the grounds for such a belief were not reasonable (an objective test)
R v Cox
Consent must be full, voluntary, free, and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgment
Subjective test - absence of consent
Whether or not the complainant was consenting is a subjective test from the complainant’s point of view - ie, what was the complainant thinking at the time?
The Crown must prove that the complainant was not consenting to the sexual act at the time it occurred - it is not for the defendant to prove that she was consenting.
Objective test - reasonable grounds for belief in consent
The objective test is: what would a reasonable person have believed if placed in the same position as the defendant.
If a reasonable person would, in the same circumstances, have believed the complainant was consenting, the jury may well acquit the defendant. If a reasonable person would not have believed she was consenting, the jury is more likely to convict.
R v Gutuama
Under the objective test, the Crown must prove that “no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought she was consenting”.
Lack of protest or resistance
A lack of protest or resistance does not mean a person is consenting, even if the lack of consent has not been communicated to the defendant; what is relevant is the complainant’s state of mind.
Force, threat, or fear of force
There is no consent if a person submits to sexual connection because of the actual or threatened application of force to any person, or because of an honestly held fear of force, whether or not that fear was reasonable. The issue is whether the complainant allowed the sexual activity because of it.
R v Koroheke (consent)
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 might happen if she does not give in or co-operate, is not true consent.
Affected by alcohol or drugs
The influence of alcohol and drugs may have an impact on a persons ability to give valid consent, however consent is not invalid simply because the person is intoxicated. The question is whether they were affected to such an extent that they were incapable of understanding the situation and giving rational or reasonable consent.
Intellectual, mental or physical impairment
Where the validity of a person’s consent is in question due to an impairment, the issue is whether the impairment was sufficiently severe so as to deprive the complainant of the capacity to give or withhold consent.
Mistake as to identity
This provision covers situations where consent is given on the basis of mistaken identity. If a complainant consents to sexual activity with a person, believing they are actually someone else, then such consent is not valid.
Mistake as to nature and quality of act
In R v Williams, a church choirmaster had sexual connection with a 16 year old girl on the pretence he was performing a medical procedure to improve her singing voice. The court of appeal upheld his conviction for rape as the girl had only consented to what she had mistakenly believed was a medical procedure.
R v Harpur (conduct)
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question 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 Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age.
Cox v R (child’s consent)
Although, we do not exclude the possibility that a child of ten or eleven may be able to give a full, voluntary, free and informed consent to sexual intercourse, the circumstances that would justify that conclusion would be exceptional if not rare. A ten or eleven year old child may know what sexual intercourse is. She may indicate her agreement
Cox v R (reasonable adult)
Save in exceptional and rare circumstances even where she indicates an agreement to the act occurring, no reasonable adult would have grounds for believing that a ten or eleven year old girl has the experience or maturity to understand the nature and significance of the act.
R v Court
Indecency means “conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the complainant”.
R v Leeson
The definition of “indecent assault”, is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency.
Acts that may be sufficiently proximate (attempted sexual violation)
- Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim.
- Enticing the victim to go to the scene of the contemplated offence.
- Recon the scene of the contemplated offence.
- Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the offence will be committed.
- Possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the offence
- Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the offence.
To be guilty of an attempt a person must
- Intend to commit the offence
- Take a real and substantial step towards achieving that aim
Attempted sexual violation - crown must prove what
Crown must prove:
- Intended to have sexual connection with the complainant
- The complainant did not consent to the intended sexual connection
- The defendant did not believe on reasonable grounds that the complainant was consenting
Sexual conduct with a child under 12 consent defence
Consent is no defence to a charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12
Mistake as to age (child under 12)
It is no defence to a charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12 that the offender believed the child was 12 years of age or over
Defence for sex with young person under 16
A defence may arise if:
- They have taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the young person was at least 16
- They believed on reasonable grounds that the young person was at least 16
- The young person consented
What must the prosecution prove in a case of indecent assault
- The defendant intentionally assaulted the complainant
- The circumstances accompanying the assault were indecent
- The defendant intended the conduct that a reasonable person would find indecent
When is consent relevant
The material time when consent, and belief in consent, is to be considered is at the time the act actually took place
When is consent invalid
(1) They do not consent just because they do not offer physical protest or resistance.
(2) force applied to them or some other person, the threat of force (express or implied), the fear of force.
(3) Asleep or unconscious.
(4) So affected by alcohol or drugs they cannot consent or refuse.
(5) So affected by an intellectual, mental, or physical condition or impairment they cannot consent or refuse.
(6) Mistaken identity.
(7) Mistaken as to the nature and quality of the act.