Case
rape: criminal law
- Module
- Criminal law (LL1003)
- Institution
- Royal Holloway University Of London
my notes for end of year exams
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Criminal law rapeSEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
ACTUS REUS - PENETRATION OF VAGINA, ANUS OR MOUTH BY THE D PENIS WHICH THE
VICTIM DID NOT CONSENT TO. ONLY THE SLIGHTEST PENETRATION IS REQUIRED SEEN IN
S79(5)
MENS REA - D DOES NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT THE VICTIM CONSENTED TO THIS.
‘REASONABLENESS IS BASED ON THE STANDARD OF A REASONABLE MAN’
● R V MALONE 1998
‘SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS AN CONTINUING ACT’
● SO THEY CAN WITHDRAW AT ANY TIME
● R V KAITAMAKI 1985, S79(2)
CONSENT
S74 DEFINES CONSENT ‘PERSON CAN CONSENT IF THEY HAVE AGREED BY CHOICE AND
HAD THE FREEDOM AND CAPACITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION’
S75 IS THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF NEGATED CONSENT
THE COMPLAINANT IS ASSUMED TO NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONSENT:
● D USED VIOLENCE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF THE RELEVANT ACT
● D CAUSED V TO FEAR THAT VIOLENCE WOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR
AT THE TIME OF THE RELEVANT ACT
● V UNLAWFULLY DETAINED WHILST D WAS NOT
● V COULD NOT COMMUNICATE CONSENT DUE TO MENTAL IMPAIRMENT FROM
PHYSICAL DISABILITY
● V WAS ASLEEP/UNCONSCIOUS
● V WAS ADMINISTERED A SUBSTANCE BY ANY OTHER PERSON THAT WAS CAPABLE
OF OVER POWERING OR STUPEFYING THE V AT TIME OF THE RELEVANT ACT.
S76 NEGATED CONSENT THROUGH FRAUD
2(A) DECEIVED THE COMPLAINANT ABOUT THE ‘NATURE OR PURPOSE OF THE RELEVANT
ACT’
R v Flattery - v was told d would be performing surgery on her for her learning difficulties but he was
performing sexual intercourse instead.
R v Williams - v was told d would be performing an act to open up her air passages to improve her
singing but was actually performing sexual intercourse with her.
Both consent in these cases were vitiated by fraud as to the nature and quality of the act..\ however in
R v Linekar - she had intercourse with d with knowledge that she would be paid for the relevant act,
however she did not get paid, held her the fraud did not vitiate the consent. This woman does not
show any sign of being asleep, unconscious and was capable in giving consent, when consent is
given by fraud then it is not a case of rape.
Modern case: R v Lawrence where d said he made false representation that he had done vasectomy
but then impregnated the girl.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller yangjensherpa. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now