- Created by: Jennifer
- Created on: 27-04-15 22:30
Sexual offences: Revision
Sexual offences act 2003
§ The law relating to sexual offences was codified by the SEXAUL OFFENCES ACT 2003 -> however didn’t bring all sexual offences under one umbrella.
§ act was intended to modernize the law of sexual offences and bring it more closely into line with contemporary attitudes. "archaic, incoherent and discriminatory"- Lord Falcon L.C.
§ create gender neutral offences (apart from ****)- equality and prevents discrimination
§ clear up laws concerning consent
S,1 of SOA 2003 provides the new definition of ****- changes the mens rea to involve lack of of a reasonable belief in consent.
MAXIUM FOR **** IS LIFE - no matter where the penetration- Ismail (2005)
Offence: " a person commits offence if
· he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of a person with his penis
· B does not consent to the penetration
· A does not reasonably believe that a consents"
INTEND TO PENTRATE
2.WHO PENETRATES WITH HIS PENIS
3.THE VAGINA , ANUS OR MOUTH OF A VICTIM
NOT REASONABY BELIEVE THAT VICTIM CONSENTED TO PENTRATION
4.WHO DOES NOT CONSENT TO THE PENTRATION
A PERSON: can only be committed by men (penile penetration) also includes surgically constructed penis. PENTRATION: of V includes surgically constructed vagina (- making law less discriminatory) - SOA 2003 s .79 (2) - mouth and anus. However does not mention degree of penetration. S.79 (2)- penetration is continuing act from entry to withdrawal. If d continues to penetrates during sex after v removes consent - still ****. how much time d has to withdraw is unclear- parliament on passing act stated that 'reasonable time' - 'reasonable' decided by jury = inconsistency. ABSENCE OF CONSENT: consent is not just isolated to **** but all sexual offences. definition of consent is in s. 74 . evidential and conclusive in s 75 & 76.
-reference to reasonable belief in consent overrules DPP v Morgan (1976) in context of ****- so D can no longer assert lack of mens rea because, being unreasonable believed victim consented.
one change was **** now includes forced oral penetration with penis, which used to be prosecuted as indecent assault- failed to indicate seriousness of wrongness- home office oral penetration was 'as horrible , as demanding and as traumatizing as other forms of forced penile penetration'. - the fact that penetration was with the penis oral penetration deserved to be classified as ****- and does deserve the maximum life sentence- even though penetration with by objects was also an extremely serious violation .
prosecution must prove that there was penile penetration and it was intentional- penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal S. 79 (2) - means that during consensual sex offence can be committed once consent is removed and pen continues.
Absence of consent is key and…