Sexual ofeences
Sexual ofeences act 2003
Act codifed aend overhauled archaic old laws. Previousl the law was based oen decisioens ccommoen
law).
The harm of sexual ofeences
No requiremeent of ph sical or ps chiatric ienjur .
‘special enature’ of sex ofeences refected ien SOA: level of detail aims to take awa the eneed for courts
to ienterpret but core coencepts stll opeen to coentestatoen.
SOA: objectve meens rea requiremeent e.g ‘abseence of reasoenable belief ien coenseent’ aend sometmes
strict liabilit - gives rise to iencoensisteenc with other ofeences agaienst the persoen. SOA asks did the
victm coenseent.
Rape s.1 SOA 2003
1.A persoen cA) commits aen ofeence if
He ienteentoenall peenetrates the vagiena, aenus or mouth of aenother persoen cB)) with his peenis
B) does enot coenseent to the peenetratoen aend,
A does enot reasoenabl believe that B) coenseents
2.whether a belief is reasoenable is to be determiened havieng regard to all circumstaences iencludieng aen
steps A has takeen to ascertaien whether B) coenseents.
3. sectoens 75 aend 76 appl to aen ofeence. Evideentar presumptoens of enoen coenseent
4.** a persoen guilt of aen ofeence uender this
Sectoen 74 gives defenitoen of coenseent ‘a persoen coenseents if he agrees b choice, aend has the freedom
aend capacit to make that choice’
Actus reus:
It must ienvolve peenile peenetratoen
Is a coentenuieng act
E.g ien failieng to withdraw prior to ejaculatoen as agreed cR v F 2013)
Peenetratoen caen be mienimal
D is over 10 ears old
Status is irrelevaent, marital rape became a crime through cR v R 1991)
Without V’s coenseent cR v McFall 1994- D kidenapped V, V preteended to coenseent for fear of her
safet ).
Its about V’s state of miend, lef to the jur
s.76 coenclusive presumptoens about coenseent
1. if aen of these circumstaences existed c2.), it is to be coenclusivel presumed
a) that the complaienaent did enot coenseent to the relevaent act aend
Sexual ofeences act 2003
Act codifed aend overhauled archaic old laws. Previousl the law was based oen decisioens ccommoen
law).
The harm of sexual ofeences
No requiremeent of ph sical or ps chiatric ienjur .
‘special enature’ of sex ofeences refected ien SOA: level of detail aims to take awa the eneed for courts
to ienterpret but core coencepts stll opeen to coentestatoen.
SOA: objectve meens rea requiremeent e.g ‘abseence of reasoenable belief ien coenseent’ aend sometmes
strict liabilit - gives rise to iencoensisteenc with other ofeences agaienst the persoen. SOA asks did the
victm coenseent.
Rape s.1 SOA 2003
1.A persoen cA) commits aen ofeence if
He ienteentoenall peenetrates the vagiena, aenus or mouth of aenother persoen cB)) with his peenis
B) does enot coenseent to the peenetratoen aend,
A does enot reasoenabl believe that B) coenseents
2.whether a belief is reasoenable is to be determiened havieng regard to all circumstaences iencludieng aen
steps A has takeen to ascertaien whether B) coenseents.
3. sectoens 75 aend 76 appl to aen ofeence. Evideentar presumptoens of enoen coenseent
4.** a persoen guilt of aen ofeence uender this
Sectoen 74 gives defenitoen of coenseent ‘a persoen coenseents if he agrees b choice, aend has the freedom
aend capacit to make that choice’
Actus reus:
It must ienvolve peenile peenetratoen
Is a coentenuieng act
E.g ien failieng to withdraw prior to ejaculatoen as agreed cR v F 2013)
Peenetratoen caen be mienimal
D is over 10 ears old
Status is irrelevaent, marital rape became a crime through cR v R 1991)
Without V’s coenseent cR v McFall 1994- D kidenapped V, V preteended to coenseent for fear of her
safet ).
Its about V’s state of miend, lef to the jur
s.76 coenclusive presumptoens about coenseent
1. if aen of these circumstaences existed c2.), it is to be coenclusivel presumed
a) that the complaienaent did enot coenseent to the relevaent act aend
