Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection Flashcards

1
Q

Section

A

Section 128(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Penalty

A

20 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Ingredients

A

1) A person
2) Has Sexual Connection
3) With another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

A person

Name the three things

A
  • Gender neutral
  • Proven by judicial notice or
  • Circumstantial evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
Unlawful sexual connections 
Section 128(3), Crimes Act 1961
A

Person A has unlawful sexual connection with person B is Person A has sexual connection with person B-

a) without person B’s consent to the connection AND
b) Without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Sexual connection

Section 2, Crimes Act 1961

A

a) Connection effected by the introduction into the genitalia or anus of one person, otherwise than for genuine medical purposes, of
i) a part of the body of another person, or
ii) an object held or manipulated by another person, or
b) connection between the mouth or tongue of one person and part of another person’s genitalia or anus, or
c) the continuation of connection of a kind described in paragraph a) or b)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Are introduction and penetration the same thing?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What degree of introduction must be effected to constitute connection?

A

Introduction to the slightest degree is enough to effect connection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What three things can be used as proof of penetration:

a) CCTV footage
b) Witness accounts
c) Medical examination (DNA , injuries)
d) Offenders admissions
e) The complainants evidence

A

c) d) and e)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The genitalia comprise the reproduction organ, interior and exterior…they include the Vulva and the labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina.

A

R v Koroheke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Genitalia

A

Genitalia includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to naturally occurring male or female genitalia (weather the person concerned is male, female, or of indeterminate sex)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Consent must by full, voluntary and informed…freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form rational judgment.

A

R v Cox

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Name the matters that dont constitute consent

A

Matters that don’t constitute consent

  • Not protesting or offering physical resistance to use of force.
  • Application of force to self or other, threats of force o self or other, or fear of force to self or other.
  • Asleep or unconscious
  • So affected by drug/alcohol they cannot consent.
  • So affected by mental or physical impairment they cannot consent
  • Mistaken ID
  • Mistaken as to the nature and quality of the act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Reasonable Grounds:

What was the complainant thinking at the time? Was s/h consenting?

A

Subjective test- step 1

Absence of consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Reasonable Grounds
if S/he were not consenting did the offender believe the complainant was consenting? What was the offender thinking at the time.

A

Subjective test-step2

Belief in consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Reasonable Grounds
If the offender believed the complainant was consenting, was that belief reasonable in the circumstances. I.e What would a reasonable person have believed if placed in the same position as the Defendant.

A

Objective test-step 3

Belief in Consent

17
Q

Under the objective test the Crown must prove that “no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought that the complainant was consenting

A

R v Gutuama