Exam Notes Section A: Unit 4.3:
Indicate how the Criminal Law (Sexual offences and related matters) Amendment Act (32 of 2007)
provides protection for victims of sexual offences
X confused w/ Sexual offences Act (23 of 1957)
o 1957: still exists & criminalises
Selling of sex
Keeping a brothel
o Purchasing of sex (client) criminalised 2007 Act
Through creation of SORMA
“Sexual offences and related matters Amendment”
Other criminal acts defined by SORMA:
o Showing pornography to a child
o Benefiting from child pornography
Making money from creation & distribution
o Exhibitionism
Flashing
o Necrophilia
Sex w/ a corpse
o Incest
o Engaging in sexual activities in presence of child younger than 16
o Grooming child via internet
o Sexual exploitation of children
o Child trafficking
, Replaced def. to incl.
- Unlawful penetration of a penis into a
NB: Do not have to study section
vagina, mouth/ anus or unlawful
focusing on consensual sexual
penetration w/ an object into an anus or
violation, just take note of it
vagina
BEFORE:
- Penetration of a penis into a vagina.
o ∴ only ♀ could be raped
Before = indecent assault
Coercive circumstances emphasise
that rape is X simply about whether NOW:
victim “consented”: it’s about
reprehensible conduct of the - Committing = ♀
perpetrator. Repealed or ♂ & so can the
It shifts the enquiry away from what common law of victim.
rape.
victim did to what accused did & puts
them on term to justify their conduct.
Sexual penetration
SORMA Only unlawful if prosecutor = able to
prove complainant DID NOT
Provisions = shift in CONSENT & prove accused intended
enquiry to rape complainant
Example case:
- S v Zuma (2006)
Requirement of non- [Page 72]
consent:
Section 1(2) of SORMA
- “Voluntary/ uncoerced agreement”
Provides open list od coercive circumstances:
Complainant submits because of:
o Force / intimidation, / threat of harm, by accused against complainant, another person /
their property
Abuse of power /authority by accused to extent that complainant felt unable to indicate their
unwillingness / resistance to the sexual act
Sexual act committed under false pretences, incl. where accused leads complainant to believe
that they are having sex w/ 1 person when in fact it’s another, / sexual act is another kind of act
(e.g., a gynaecological examination)
Where complainant was incapable of consenting because they were asleep, unconscious, / in
altered state of consciousness to extent that their judgement was impaired
(Act refers to such influences as medication, drugs, & alcohol)
Where a child is under 12 (& so legally X = capacity to consent) / person = mentally disabled.
Indicate how the Criminal Law (Sexual offences and related matters) Amendment Act (32 of 2007)
provides protection for victims of sexual offences
X confused w/ Sexual offences Act (23 of 1957)
o 1957: still exists & criminalises
Selling of sex
Keeping a brothel
o Purchasing of sex (client) criminalised 2007 Act
Through creation of SORMA
“Sexual offences and related matters Amendment”
Other criminal acts defined by SORMA:
o Showing pornography to a child
o Benefiting from child pornography
Making money from creation & distribution
o Exhibitionism
Flashing
o Necrophilia
Sex w/ a corpse
o Incest
o Engaging in sexual activities in presence of child younger than 16
o Grooming child via internet
o Sexual exploitation of children
o Child trafficking
, Replaced def. to incl.
- Unlawful penetration of a penis into a
NB: Do not have to study section
vagina, mouth/ anus or unlawful
focusing on consensual sexual
penetration w/ an object into an anus or
violation, just take note of it
vagina
BEFORE:
- Penetration of a penis into a vagina.
o ∴ only ♀ could be raped
Before = indecent assault
Coercive circumstances emphasise
that rape is X simply about whether NOW:
victim “consented”: it’s about
reprehensible conduct of the - Committing = ♀
perpetrator. Repealed or ♂ & so can the
It shifts the enquiry away from what common law of victim.
rape.
victim did to what accused did & puts
them on term to justify their conduct.
Sexual penetration
SORMA Only unlawful if prosecutor = able to
prove complainant DID NOT
Provisions = shift in CONSENT & prove accused intended
enquiry to rape complainant
Example case:
- S v Zuma (2006)
Requirement of non- [Page 72]
consent:
Section 1(2) of SORMA
- “Voluntary/ uncoerced agreement”
Provides open list od coercive circumstances:
Complainant submits because of:
o Force / intimidation, / threat of harm, by accused against complainant, another person /
their property
Abuse of power /authority by accused to extent that complainant felt unable to indicate their
unwillingness / resistance to the sexual act
Sexual act committed under false pretences, incl. where accused leads complainant to believe
that they are having sex w/ 1 person when in fact it’s another, / sexual act is another kind of act
(e.g., a gynaecological examination)
Where complainant was incapable of consenting because they were asleep, unconscious, / in
altered state of consciousness to extent that their judgement was impaired
(Act refers to such influences as medication, drugs, & alcohol)
Where a child is under 12 (& so legally X = capacity to consent) / person = mentally disabled.
