Summary
Summary Criminal Law Essay Outlines (First Class)
Comprehensive and detailed first class Criminal Law essay outlines, from University College London (2018/2019)
[Show more]
Content preview
Sexual Offences"Determining consent to any sexual activity would be easier if the legislation had defined the
terms 'agreement', 'freedom' and 'capacity' as they are used in Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.74,
and if it had clarified whether s.76 of the Act exhaustively stated the relevance of deceptions."
Discuss, with reference to the cases decided under the 2003 Act. [2018]
Intro
AF: Define terms more clearly more prescriptive, introduces more legal certainty
CA: Leaving terms vague allows jury to have more flexibility in interpreting to ensure just
outcome
Argument For
Existing ambiguities need for legal certainty
“Agreement”
o Does this include cases of conditional consent? Unclear and court had to clarify in
R v Assange
o Conditional consent: Extent to which condition has to relate to performance of act
Assange v SPA: Held that use of condom relates to performance of act if V
made condom use a condition of sex, then deception as to use of condom will
negate consent
R v Linekar: Held that condition for money to be paid in return for sex, was
one that related to payment rather than sex itself failure to pay did not
negate consent
But this distinction in Linkear is highly arbitrary, can be argued that the
condition relates to V’s purpose for performing the act thus this condition
cannot be viewed as completely distinct from the V’s consent
o Deceptions that are not under s.76 – do they come under s.74, and if they do, do they
come under agreement?
“Freedom”
o Distinction between reluctant acquiescence and mere submission (the two categories
laid out in R v Olugboja) is extremely unclear need to clarify
Implication of this lack of clarity is significant because reluctant
acquiescence is generally held to be consent, while mere submission is not
lack of clarity gives jury a lot of flexibility in determining which category
V’s consent falls into has implications on whether V consented in the eyes
of the law and thus whether D is liable
Allowing jury to determine this with no guidance from the law allows too
much flexibility may lead to inconsistent case rulings
o Distinction may lead to unfair outcomes
If we say reluctant acquiescence is consent, we are accepting that a degree of
felt pressure is lawful unfair to V
Application of subjectivity: Victim 1 and victim 2 have different states of
mind for the same pressure
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 firstclasslawnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £19.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62555 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