Sexual Offences Flashcards
Section 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003
D commits an offence if-
He intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of V with his penis.
V does not consent to the penetration.
D does not reasonably believe V consents.
Max life.
Section 2, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Assault by penetration.
D commits an offence if-
He intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of V with a part of his body or anything else.
The penetration is sexual.
V does not consent.
D does not reasonably believe V consents.
Section 3, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Sexual assault. D commits an offence if- He intentionally touches V. The touching is sexual. V does not consent. D does not reasonably believe V consents.
Section 4, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.
D commits an offence if-
He intentionally causes V to engage in an activity.
The activity is sexual.
V does not consent.
D does not reasonably believe V consents.
Section 76, Sexual Offences Act 2003
(1) If it is proved that D did the relevant act specified in (2) it is to be presumed that V did not consent and D did not reasonably believe V consented.
(2) D intentionally deceived V as to nature/purpose of the act OR D impersonated somebody known to the complainant.
Section 74, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Administration or threat of violence or a substance, or if V was sleeping, consent vitiated.
Rebuttable.
Kaitamaki v The Queen 1985
Privy Council Appeal from NZ.
D charged w/ rape.
Claimed V consented, but conceded that during intercourse withdrew consent.
Held: Upon realising V no longer consented, D’s continuation of intercourse constituted rape.
R v Court 1989
D, a shop assistant, struck V, a 12y/o girl, on the buttocks.
Asked why, he replied ‘Buttock fetish.’
Pleaded guilty to assault, not guilty to indecent assault.
Claimed comment should be excluded.
Judge refused, D convicted.
Held on appeal: Where an assault may be decent or indecent, prosecution must prove indecency.
Motive no less a circumstance of indecency towards V merely because it is secret.
Evidence admissible.
Appeal denied.
R v Flattery 1877
V suffered fits.
D claimed to be able to cure them by ‘Breaking nature’s string’.
Mother consented to what she thought was a medical procedure.
V resisted but submitted as she believed it was treatment.
D convicted of rape.
Consent obtained by fraud.
R v H 2005
V walking dog, D asked if she fancied ‘A shag.’
V ignored and walked past.
D grabbed track suit bottoms at the right pocket, attempted to pull her towards him.
D claimed he did not touch ‘her’, only her clothes, and that the touching was not sexual.
Held: Touching V’s clothing amounted to touching her.
Circumstances, including things said, made actions sexual.
Convicted.
Appeal on same points dismissed.
R v Courtie 1984
D charged with buggery of V, 19 at the time.
After plea, prosecution claimed V did not consent, sought to add another count to indictment.
Refused, but evidence heard by judge and two justices.
Sentenced later according to the more serious offence.
Held: Issue of consent should have been left for the jury.
Appeal allowed.
As D had served his sentence, parole was removed.
DPP v K & B 1997
Defendants robbed, beat and falsely imprisoned V.
Boy later involved, V forced to engage in intercourse with him.
Boy not traced, may have been under 14.
Prosecution failed to negative doli incapax of the boy.
D1+2 could not be tried as principle offenders so were acquitted of aiding and abetting rape.
Prosecution appealed: Gender irrelevant, doli incapax did not vitiate D1+2 of procurers of rape.
Held: Doli incapax raised a rebuttable presumption (As opposed to an under ten who could not commit an offence.)
Actus reus proved, respondents had requisite mens rea.
Case remitted to magistrate.
R v Bree 2007
D charged w/ rape.
V alleged he had raped her while she was effectively unconscious.
Charge changed by end of trial, she was conscious and capable, but did not in fact consent.
D convicted.
Held on appeal: If, through drink, V lost capacity to consent then she did not consent.
Where V voluntarily consumes alcohol but retains ability to choose and in drink agrees to intercourse, she was consenting.
Conviction quashed.
R v Wright 2007
D & V gave directly conflicted accounts of an alleged rape.
Judge directed: Stark choice.
R unconscious: No consent. Rape.
Alternative (Not unconscious, or doubt) not presented.
Held: Jury either accepted evidence or not.
Jury properly directed.
Appeal dismissed.
R v Tabassum 2000
D asked women to take part in breast cancer survey.
Believed him to be medically qualified.
Submitted that absence of consent could not be proved, rejected.
Claimed motive was not sexual.
Held on appeal: Complainants gave consent because of their belief.
Nature and purpose of act changed.
D’s motive irrelevant, act indecent by its very nature.
Appeal dismissed.
