Sexual Offences Cases Flashcards
(5 cards)
- R v Bree EWCA Crim 804
o Context: A significant case discussing the relationship between intoxication and consent in Rape.
o Principle/Details: The essential question is whether the victim consented at the time, not just whether alcohol lowered inhibitions. “A drunken consent is still consent”. Consent is valid unless the victim had temporarily lost the capacity to choose whether or not to have intercourse. The case involved a victim who was very drunk but was conscious and participated in the sexual activity, leading the court to hold her consent was valid.
- R v Olugboja QB 320
o Context: Distinguishes between consent and submission in Rape.
o Principle/Details: Submission induced by force, fear, or fraud is not consent. The case involved a victim who did not resist or cry out for help out of fright; held this was submission, not consent, and therefore constituted rape.
- R v McNally EWCA Crim 1051
o Context: Illustrates how misrepresentation relating to the nature of the act itself can vitiate consent in Rape.
o Principle/Details: Held that where the defendant deceived the victim as to their real gender, this related to the nature of the act itself and meant the victim did not truly consent.
- R v Elbekkay Crim LR 163
o Context: Illustrates one of the conclusive presumptions of lack of consent in Rape under s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
o Principle/Details: Consent is conclusively presumed absent where the defendant intentionally deceived the victim as to the nature or purpose of the act or impersonated someone known personally to the complainant. In this case, the defendant deceived the victim into thinking he was her boyfriend, falling under the impersonation category.
- R v Taran EWCA Crim 1498
o Context: Illustrates the mens rea for Rape, specifically the requirement of lack of a reasonable belief that the victim consents.
o Principle/Details: Where the defendant claims they believed the victim consented, the court must assess how reasonable that belief was from the perspective of a reasonable person in the circumstances, considering steps taken to ascertain consent. The case involved a victim who struggled throughout the encounter; held the defendant’s belief in consent was unreasonable.
