Potential criminal liability of Andy: Rape under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003 and Murder.
In establishing the criminal liability of Andy for rape: section 1 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the
Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person is guilty of rape if he intentionally
penetrates the victim’s vagina, anus or mouth with a penis without the victim’s consent
and without reasonable believe that the victim consented to the penile penetration.
AR element of rape: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of the victim
without the victim’s consent.
Penetration: the penetration must be penile in nature, and as provided in R v Cooper
and Schaub and Section 79 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, penetration is a
continuing act from entry and withdrawal and it does not require ejaculation.
On the facts, Andy’s sex is a male therefore he has a penis. In addition, at the
time of sexual intercourse, there must have been penile penetration of Beth’s vagina.
Therefore there was penile penetration as there was a continuing act of Andy from the
entry and withdrawal.
Lack of consent: section 74 of the 2003 Act provides that a person consents if he
agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. If the situation
as provided under section 75 (2) (a) of the 2003 Act where there was use of violence
against the victim or causing the victim to fear that violence will be used as shown in R
v Dagnall, is proven, it would be presumed that there is no consent.
On the facts, there was no consent given by Beth. This is due to the fact that
Andy had brought her to a lonely alley at night where no one is there, is capable of
, causing Beth to fear use of violence as Andy could have easily overpowered her.
Therefore Beth was in a position where her freedom to reject the sexual intercourse was
taken away as she knew that Andy would use violence if she did not give in to the
intercourse. Therefore Beth had not consented to the intercourse due to the fear of
violence
MR element of rape: intentional penile penetration and there was no reasonable belief
that the victim consented to the penetration.
Intentional penile penetration: section 1 (1) (a) of the 2003 Act provides that the penile
penetration done by the defendant to the victim’s vagina, anus or mouth must be
intentional.
On the facts, by Andy bringing Beth to a lonely alley at night where no one was
there, it could be safely inferred that it was Andy’s intention to engage in sexual
intercourse with Beth and penetrate her vagina during the intercourse, as Beth was
clearly in a position to not able to refuse the intercourse due to the fact that Andy could
have easily overpowered her at that time. Therefore by Andy bringing Beth to a lonely
alley at night, it shows that it was Andy’s intention to engage in sexual intercourse with
Beth and to penetrate her vagina during the intercourse.
No reasonable belief that the victim consented: as provided under section 1 (1) (c) of
the 2003 Act, it must be shown that the defendant does not reasonably belief that the
victim consents. In determining whether the defendant reasonably believed that the
victim consented, the jury has to access whether the belief was reasonable or not.
2003 and Murder.
In establishing the criminal liability of Andy for rape: section 1 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the
Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person is guilty of rape if he intentionally
penetrates the victim’s vagina, anus or mouth with a penis without the victim’s consent
and without reasonable believe that the victim consented to the penile penetration.
AR element of rape: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of the victim
without the victim’s consent.
Penetration: the penetration must be penile in nature, and as provided in R v Cooper
and Schaub and Section 79 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, penetration is a
continuing act from entry and withdrawal and it does not require ejaculation.
On the facts, Andy’s sex is a male therefore he has a penis. In addition, at the
time of sexual intercourse, there must have been penile penetration of Beth’s vagina.
Therefore there was penile penetration as there was a continuing act of Andy from the
entry and withdrawal.
Lack of consent: section 74 of the 2003 Act provides that a person consents if he
agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. If the situation
as provided under section 75 (2) (a) of the 2003 Act where there was use of violence
against the victim or causing the victim to fear that violence will be used as shown in R
v Dagnall, is proven, it would be presumed that there is no consent.
On the facts, there was no consent given by Beth. This is due to the fact that
Andy had brought her to a lonely alley at night where no one is there, is capable of
, causing Beth to fear use of violence as Andy could have easily overpowered her.
Therefore Beth was in a position where her freedom to reject the sexual intercourse was
taken away as she knew that Andy would use violence if she did not give in to the
intercourse. Therefore Beth had not consented to the intercourse due to the fear of
violence
MR element of rape: intentional penile penetration and there was no reasonable belief
that the victim consented to the penetration.
Intentional penile penetration: section 1 (1) (a) of the 2003 Act provides that the penile
penetration done by the defendant to the victim’s vagina, anus or mouth must be
intentional.
On the facts, by Andy bringing Beth to a lonely alley at night where no one was
there, it could be safely inferred that it was Andy’s intention to engage in sexual
intercourse with Beth and penetrate her vagina during the intercourse, as Beth was
clearly in a position to not able to refuse the intercourse due to the fact that Andy could
have easily overpowered her at that time. Therefore by Andy bringing Beth to a lonely
alley at night, it shows that it was Andy’s intention to engage in sexual intercourse with
Beth and to penetrate her vagina during the intercourse.
No reasonable belief that the victim consented: as provided under section 1 (1) (c) of
the 2003 Act, it must be shown that the defendant does not reasonably belief that the
victim consents. In determining whether the defendant reasonably believed that the
victim consented, the jury has to access whether the belief was reasonable or not.
