Sexual Offences Notes

sexual offences

Prior SOA 2003 & transition

Problems with consent

1. Lack of a definition beyond “not mere submission”

2. D could escape conviction from an unreasonable belief in V’s consent

3. Too few sexual convictions due to

   1. Decision in Morgan, where Lord Hailsham held rape to consist in having sex with a woman by force, fear or fraud

   2. Judge/jury biasess

“Genuinely” to “Reasonably”

1. D now liable for an objective failure to take due care to ascertain consent

   1. D believing that V has consented, without good justification, no longer exonerates him

   2. D must not only have reasonably believed in V’s choice to agree to the sexual activity, but also V’s capacity to consent

2. Out of step with the march of subjectivists which has led to MR for serious offences requiring a culpable state of mind rather than an objective failure

   1. However, parliament considered change carefully and clearly intended it

3. Justification

   1. Cost to D of taking reasonable steps to ascertain V’s state of mind is less than the effect on V of D’s failure to do so

[Reasonable belief in consent (S.1-4)]

1. General elements

   1. **Three possible ways for culpability

      1. D knows V does not consent

      2. D gives no thought to whether V consents

      3. D considers whether V consents, but simply does not care whether or not she does

   2. Case law

      1. D would not reasonably believe V was consenting if D was relying on information given by another – would not meet the bar of reasonable belief

   3. S.1-4 of SOA – whether a belief is reasonable is determined having regard to all circumstances, including any steps D has taken to ascertain whether V consents. Jury likely to consider –

      1. How long have D & V known each other, have they had a sexual relationship in the past, and have they discussed possibility of sexual relations?

      2. Where D has sex with V thinking V is X, or if V is asleep, did D take further step to ascertain consent?

   4. *Question is not whether reasonable person think V might be consenting, but whether V is consenting

      1. If reasonable person would conclude “I think V is consenting, but I can’t be sure” – no RBC

   5. One issue is whether the jury should take into account characteristics of D, and if so, which characteristics. Protecting the Public states – reference to what an objective third party would think; Herring – imagining a reasonable person in D’s shoes – CoA provided obiter support in R v B(MA)

2. **Intoxication and reasonably believed

   1. D’s voluntary intoxication isn’t something the jury can take into account when deciding whether belief in consent is reasonable – otherwise, open to a convenient defence for D

      1. Whitta – D climbed into a bed and digitally penetrated with V, the mother of a girl he’s with – and said that he wouldn’t have made the mistake had he been sober. CoA held that the test is simply whether a sober person could have had reasonable belief in consent, and upheld the Conviction; principle upheld in Grewal

3. **Mental disorder & reasonable belief

   1. Takes meaning in Mental Health Act – learning disability to serious personality disorder, broad term

   2. R v M(M) – D had delusional beliefs – some kind of psychosis, believing that he could cure, and that V should be having sex with him, whether she wanted to or not. Court say medical evidence couldn’t possibly have supported a finding of reasonable belief, but in obiter that there is however room for such an issue to be raised – reasonably believed looser than reasonable man test

Rape

**Sexual Offences Act 2003 s 1

1. A person (A) commits an offence if –

   1. he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

   2. B does not consent to the penetration, and

   3. A does not reasonably believe that B consents

2. Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents

3. Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

4. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life

Contours of offence

1. Basic definition

   1. AR – D penetrated V, A or M of V with his penis & V did not consent to penetration (SOA s1)

   2. MR – (1) D intended to penetrate V, A or M of V, & (2) D did not reasonably believe that V consented (SOA s1)

2. Clarifications

   1. Only a man can commit rape – offence requires penetration by penis. If woman forces man to engage in sexual intercourse, it will be sexual assault

   2. A husband can rape his wife – after 1994 amendment to the SOA 1956, which put into statutory effect the HoL decision in R v R (1991!!)

   3. A man or woman can be V of rape – s.79(3) of SOA 2003 makes it clear that a surgically constructed V is included within definition of V, applying to transgender individuals

   4. Penetration – whether AR of rape is complete once penetration takes place, or it continues so long as there is penetration – relevant to AR MR coincidence rule

3. Nature of rape – what is the wrong?

   1. Sexual autonomy

      1. People have the right to decide with whom to have sexual relations – therefore harmed caused even if D has sex with an unconscious V who suffers no physical or emotional harm (Herring)

         1. Reubenfield – D’s self-determination not fulfilled if law does not allow him to sleep with V, V’s refusal to have sex with D can cause D acute suffering

            1. R1 – respect for autonomy gives us reason to leave someone alone to their self-actualisation – does not require us to fulfil everyone’s desires (Herring). Hence, the law treats rights to bodily integrity as key to this dilemma – if D has sex with V he has imposed his wishes on her body. If V refuses to have sex with D she has imposed nothing on his body and has not interfered in his rights

            2. R2 – misstates the principle of autonomy – you must not exercise autonomy in a way that unjustifiably harms another

      2. Ashworth says a sexual offence constitutes a wrong in that it invades a deeply personal zone – gaining non-consensually what can only be shared...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Notes.