Sexual Offences

?
  • Created by: phoebs.b
  • Created on: 09-04-18 15:44

R v Olugboja (1982) - The defendant and the co-accused L met the complainant and K at a discotheque and offered to take them home. In fact they drove them to L's bungalow. The complainants refused to go in and began to walk away. The defendant went into the bungalow but L followed the girls and ***** the complainant in the car. The three returned to the bungalow where L dragged K into a bedroom. The defendant then told the complainant that he was going to have intercourse with her. She told him what had happened in the car and asked him to leave her alone. He told her to take off her trousers. She did and he had intercourse with her. The defendant was charged with ****. The judge directed the jury that, although the complainant had not struggled and no direct threat had been made to her, it was open to them to decide that she had submitted, rather than consented, to the sexual intercourse. The defendant was convicted and appealed. 

R v Jheeta (2007) - the defendant and the victim had met some years previously and had begun a consensual sexual relationship. The victim received various text messages purportedly from police officers, but in fact from the defendant, directing her to sleep with the defendant or she would be liable for a fine. The defendant admitted he knew the victim had intercourse with him because of the texts and that she had not truly consented. The defendant pleaded guilty to **** under the 2003 Act on the basis that his admitted behaviour fell within the ambit of s76 of the 2003 Act. However, the Court of Appeal held that the conclusive presumption in s76 of the 2003 Act had no application where the victim was deceived by the defendant's lies. Whilst lies may be deceptive and persuasive, they would rarely go to the nature or purpose of the act, which in the case of **** was vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse. However, as the defendant had admitted that on some occasions intercourse had taken place when the victim was not truly consenting, that was not a free choice or consent for the purpose of s74 of the 2003 Act and, therefore, the defendant's convictions for **** were safe. 

R v Devonald (2008) - the victim had recently split up with his girlfriend. The defendant was the girlfriend's father who sought to get revenge. He went online and pretended to be a young woman. The defendant persuaded the victim to perform a sex act, which the defendant recorded, intending to put it online in order to embarrass the victim. It was held that the victim had been deceived by the defendant as to the 'purpose' of the act (the victim thought it was to give pleasure to the young woman, in fact it was to make a recording) and so the victim did not consent to…

Comments

No comments have yet been made