Self Notes
Sunday, 9 February, 2025 11:07 PM
Other cases under SOA 2003 ( not rape )
Offence of Rape - Indictable offence R v Ram
Goverend under - Maximum life imprisonment Woman can be charged for aiding and abeting
- Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Basic intent crime R v Cogan &Leak
- Statutory based Woman can still be charged for ( AnA )
- Gender neutral act eventho the rapist has been acquitted under
○ Conrasted to the 1956 act lack of MR
Smith and Hogan
Caused person to engage in sexual activity
Section 1
A person commits the offence of rape if Presumption of Lack Of reasonable Belief
a. He intentionally penetrates vagina, anus , or mouth of another person • Section 76 ( nature/quality/mistaken identity)
with the penis • Section 75 (circumstances )
b. B does not consent • Section 74 ( consent )
c. A does not reasonably believed that B consented
i) Whether a belief is reasonable to determine having regards to all Section 76 If any circumstances that are mentioned in (2) , conclusively presumed
circumstances including any steps A has taken to ascertain if B consented - Cannot be rebutted by D
ii) SOA 2003 requires belief to be held BOTH honestly held ( subjective ) and a. C did not consent to the relevant act
reasonable ( objective ) in order to escape liability. b. D did not believe the C consented
Circumstances in (2)
Actus Reus Mens Rea a. D intentionally deceived C to the nature or purpose of the act
- Penile penetration of mouth, - Intentional penetration b. D intentionally induces consent by impersonating person
vagina or anus - Lack of reasonable belief that the Knowingly to C
- Without consent victim was consenting Nature Williams 1923
(a) D tricked woman, sex was said to improve singing voice
Penile penetration Intentional Penetration Consent was to improving voice , not sex
- Intercourse = continuing act - Have to establish if D reasonably -> No consent
from entry to withdrawl believed Tabassum
( Kaitamaki ) - How ? D tricked woman into medical breast examination
V consented at first but then - Look at all circumstances as Consent to touching for medical purpose , NOT sexual
withdrew consent , D was stated in S1(2) -> No consent
aware of this fact but continued S1(2) R v Linekar
- If penetration cannot be All circumstances should be taken into D tricked prostitute that he was going to pay for the service
established = attempted rape , account V was deceived but not to the nature and quality of the act
if D act amounted to mere Test for RB = objective ->Consent was given
preparation to penile R v B ( 2013 ) Jheeta 2007
penetration D believed that he was a healer with D had sent lette rs to V and V reported it to the police which told
special powers and that intercourse her to have sexual intercourse with D ( unknowing that he was the
would heal the V one sending letters ). Police was in fact D.
Forced her to perform oral sex -> Consent was given
->delusional belief in consent -> Section 74 should be applied = freedom of choice
-> does not matter if D thought belief Identity Elbekkay
was reasonable (b ) D tricked V into having sex, under the mistaken identity as his
R v Gabbai brother which was the boyfreind of the V
V consented to penetration of vagina -> Consent was given under mistaken belief that the D was her BF
but not anus , prosecution must prove -> No consent
the penetration was intentional and
Section 75 Evidential presumptions about consent
not an accident
a. D did the relevant act
b. Any of the circumstances specified in subsection 2 existed and
c. D knew of those circumstances
Other examples/situations The complainant is to be taken to
HAVE NOT consented to relevant act unless sufficient evidence is
adduced to raise an issue and D is to be taken
Relating to HIV
NOT TO have reasonably believed that the C consented unless..
R v Mohamed Dica ( R v Dica) 2003
Evidence is raised.
D had infected two sexual partners with HIV
Held Circumstan (a) at time/immediately before relevant act , violence was used against
-> Victims had not been defrauded to nature of sexual intercourse ces the C by any person causing C to fear that immediate violence
-> NO Rape Section would be used against him
-> had been defrauded as to the risk of infection 75(2) (b) At time/immediately before relevant act, violence was used against
->NO Consent to bodily harm C by any person causing the C to fear that immediate violence
would be used against another person
R v Konzani 2005 (c) C was and D not unlawfully detained
Held: COA ->Despite unlawful detention she still consented
C consent to the risk of contracting HIV was not informed consent (d) C was asleep /unconscious
D who= HIV+ had not informed the victim ->D can say that we have been married for how many years and this
R v Barnes has been the case many times , so what different would it be ?
Lord Woolf CJ -> when the question raises the word of sleepy , NO CANNOT ( still
"HIV positive male defendant who infected sexual partner with virus would be conscious ) ( semi conscious )-> should moce to S74
guilty of an offence contrary to section 20 of the 1861 act (e) C was under a physical disability that C would not have been able
IF he did not disclose his condition " to communicate to the D whether the C had consented
(f) Any person had administered or caused to be taken by the C,
Ejaculation and use of condom Without C consent , substance having regard to when
R v Lawrence administered
C agreed to sexual intercourse with A without any physical restrictions Was CAPABLE of causing or enabling the CF to be stupified or
C had been told that A had a vasectomy overpowered at the time of relevant act.
A agreed to both penetration + ejaculation without condom --------------------------------------------------------------------------
C got pregnant and accused A of rape
Sexual Offences Page 1
Sunday, 9 February, 2025 11:07 PM
Other cases under SOA 2003 ( not rape )
Offence of Rape - Indictable offence R v Ram
Goverend under - Maximum life imprisonment Woman can be charged for aiding and abeting
- Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Basic intent crime R v Cogan &Leak
- Statutory based Woman can still be charged for ( AnA )
- Gender neutral act eventho the rapist has been acquitted under
○ Conrasted to the 1956 act lack of MR
Smith and Hogan
Caused person to engage in sexual activity
Section 1
A person commits the offence of rape if Presumption of Lack Of reasonable Belief
a. He intentionally penetrates vagina, anus , or mouth of another person • Section 76 ( nature/quality/mistaken identity)
with the penis • Section 75 (circumstances )
b. B does not consent • Section 74 ( consent )
c. A does not reasonably believed that B consented
i) Whether a belief is reasonable to determine having regards to all Section 76 If any circumstances that are mentioned in (2) , conclusively presumed
circumstances including any steps A has taken to ascertain if B consented - Cannot be rebutted by D
ii) SOA 2003 requires belief to be held BOTH honestly held ( subjective ) and a. C did not consent to the relevant act
reasonable ( objective ) in order to escape liability. b. D did not believe the C consented
Circumstances in (2)
Actus Reus Mens Rea a. D intentionally deceived C to the nature or purpose of the act
- Penile penetration of mouth, - Intentional penetration b. D intentionally induces consent by impersonating person
vagina or anus - Lack of reasonable belief that the Knowingly to C
- Without consent victim was consenting Nature Williams 1923
(a) D tricked woman, sex was said to improve singing voice
Penile penetration Intentional Penetration Consent was to improving voice , not sex
- Intercourse = continuing act - Have to establish if D reasonably -> No consent
from entry to withdrawl believed Tabassum
( Kaitamaki ) - How ? D tricked woman into medical breast examination
V consented at first but then - Look at all circumstances as Consent to touching for medical purpose , NOT sexual
withdrew consent , D was stated in S1(2) -> No consent
aware of this fact but continued S1(2) R v Linekar
- If penetration cannot be All circumstances should be taken into D tricked prostitute that he was going to pay for the service
established = attempted rape , account V was deceived but not to the nature and quality of the act
if D act amounted to mere Test for RB = objective ->Consent was given
preparation to penile R v B ( 2013 ) Jheeta 2007
penetration D believed that he was a healer with D had sent lette rs to V and V reported it to the police which told
special powers and that intercourse her to have sexual intercourse with D ( unknowing that he was the
would heal the V one sending letters ). Police was in fact D.
Forced her to perform oral sex -> Consent was given
->delusional belief in consent -> Section 74 should be applied = freedom of choice
-> does not matter if D thought belief Identity Elbekkay
was reasonable (b ) D tricked V into having sex, under the mistaken identity as his
R v Gabbai brother which was the boyfreind of the V
V consented to penetration of vagina -> Consent was given under mistaken belief that the D was her BF
but not anus , prosecution must prove -> No consent
the penetration was intentional and
Section 75 Evidential presumptions about consent
not an accident
a. D did the relevant act
b. Any of the circumstances specified in subsection 2 existed and
c. D knew of those circumstances
Other examples/situations The complainant is to be taken to
HAVE NOT consented to relevant act unless sufficient evidence is
adduced to raise an issue and D is to be taken
Relating to HIV
NOT TO have reasonably believed that the C consented unless..
R v Mohamed Dica ( R v Dica) 2003
Evidence is raised.
D had infected two sexual partners with HIV
Held Circumstan (a) at time/immediately before relevant act , violence was used against
-> Victims had not been defrauded to nature of sexual intercourse ces the C by any person causing C to fear that immediate violence
-> NO Rape Section would be used against him
-> had been defrauded as to the risk of infection 75(2) (b) At time/immediately before relevant act, violence was used against
->NO Consent to bodily harm C by any person causing the C to fear that immediate violence
would be used against another person
R v Konzani 2005 (c) C was and D not unlawfully detained
Held: COA ->Despite unlawful detention she still consented
C consent to the risk of contracting HIV was not informed consent (d) C was asleep /unconscious
D who= HIV+ had not informed the victim ->D can say that we have been married for how many years and this
R v Barnes has been the case many times , so what different would it be ?
Lord Woolf CJ -> when the question raises the word of sleepy , NO CANNOT ( still
"HIV positive male defendant who infected sexual partner with virus would be conscious ) ( semi conscious )-> should moce to S74
guilty of an offence contrary to section 20 of the 1861 act (e) C was under a physical disability that C would not have been able
IF he did not disclose his condition " to communicate to the D whether the C had consented
(f) Any person had administered or caused to be taken by the C,
Ejaculation and use of condom Without C consent , substance having regard to when
R v Lawrence administered
C agreed to sexual intercourse with A without any physical restrictions Was CAPABLE of causing or enabling the CF to be stupified or
C had been told that A had a vasectomy overpowered at the time of relevant act.
A agreed to both penetration + ejaculation without condom --------------------------------------------------------------------------
C got pregnant and accused A of rape
Sexual Offences Page 1
