Sexual Offences Flashcards
Sexual Violation By Rape
Crimes Act 1961 Sec.128(1)(a) and Sec.128B 20 years Imprisonment
A person
Rapes (R v Koroheke) (R v Cox) (R v Gutuama)
Another person
R v Koroheke-genitalia
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.
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 judgement.”
R v Gutuama
Under the objective test the Crown must prove that “no reasonable person in the acccused’s shoes could have thought that [the complainant] was consenting.”
Sexual Violation by Unlawful Sexual Connection
Crimes Act 1961 Sec.128(1)(b) and Sec.128B 20 years imprisonment
A person
Has Unlawful Sexual Connection (R v Koroheke) (R v Cox) (R v Gutuama)
With another person
Assault with Intent to commit Sexual Violation
Crimes Act 1961 Section 129(2) 10 years Imprisonment
A person - defined
Assaults another person - definitions
With Intent to commit sexual violation-definitions and R v Collister
Attempted Sexual Violation
Crimes Act 1961 Section 129(1) 10 Years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Who attempts-Def and R v Harpur
To commit sexual violation-defined
Sexual conduct with dependant family member-sexual connection
Crimes Act 1961 Section 131(1) 7 Years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Has sexual connection- defined
With a dependant family member under 18 years old - defined and R v Forrest and Forrest
Sexual conduct with a child under 12-sexual connection
Crimes Act 1961 Section 132(1) 14 years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Has sexual connection - defined
With a child-means person under 12 years old
R v Forrest and Forrest
Sexual conduct with a child under 12-indecent act
Crimes Act 1961 132(3) 10 years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Does an indecent act-defined
On a child-means a person under 12 years old
R v Forrest and Forrest
Sexual conduct with a young person under 16-sexual connection
Crimes Act 1961 Section 134(1) 10 years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Has sexual connection-defined
With a young person-person under 16 years old
R v Forrest and Forrest
Sexual connection with a young person under 16-indecent act
Crimes Act 1961 Section 134(3) 7 years Imprisonment
A person - person defined
Does indecent act-defined
On a young person-person under 16 years old
R v Forrest and Forrest
Indecent Assault
Crimes Act 1961 Sec.135
7 years Imprisonment
A person - defined
Indecently Assaults - defined and R v Court and R v Leeson
Another person - defined
Sexual violation defined
Crimes Act 1961 section 128
(1) Sexual violation is the act of a person who-
(a) Rapes another person; or
(b) has unlawful sexual connection with another person.
(2) Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by penetration of person A’s genitalia by person A’s penis, -
(a) without person B’s consent to the connection; and
(b) without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.
In short: Rape is effected by person A penetrating the genitalia of person B with their penis, without their consent or a belief they were consenting.
R v Koroheke-Consent (freezing)
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.
R v Cook - consent
To be effective, consent must be “real, genuine or true consent, and that it may be conveyed by words or conduct or both.”
Cox v R - consent (child under 12)
“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 (What would a reason person in defendant’s shoes believe?)
“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.”
Indecent act on a child Section 132(3) Crimes Act 1961
If such an act is done with the consent of the child, it is immaterial whether:
The offender does the act on the child.
The child does the act on the offender.
The act is mutual.
Indecency defined
R v Court
R v Dunn
Indecency defined-An act that is “indecent” has sexual connotations and involves conduct at a person that is offensive to moral values.
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.”
Defence to charge under Section 134 Crimes Act 1961
It may provide a defence to a charge under Section 134 if the defendant proves that at the time of the sexual activity:
They had taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the young person was at least 16, and
They believed on reasonable grounds that the young person was at least 16, and
The young person consented
R v Leeson
The definition of ‘indecent assault’…is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency.
Indecent assault-what the prosecution must prove.
In these cases the prosecution must prove:
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.
If the issue of consent is raised on the evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a further two elements:
The complainant did not consent to the assault.
The defendant did not honestly believe the complainant was consenting.
R v Norris-belief in consent
If a person who is charged with indecent assault is able to establish that they honestly believed that the complainant was consenting, they are entitled to be acquitted even though the grounds of his belief were unreasonable.
