54 Questions
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 abolished the concept of consent.
False
In R v McFall, the court found the defendant not guilty of rape despite the victim's outward signs of consent.
False
Prior to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, there was a codified definition of consent in law.
False
In R v Olugboja, the judge directed the jury to consider whether the victim's lack of resistance constituted consent.
True
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 redefined rape to include marital rape.
False
The concept of 'reasonable belief in consent' was abolished by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
False
According to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the definition of consent is spread over 5 sections
False
In R v Doyle, the court held that the victim had given a reluctant but free choice, and therefore consent was found
False
The evidential presumption against consent in s75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is a question of law for the judge to decide
False
In R v Flattery, the defendant deceived the complainant into thinking that the sexual penetration was a medical procedure, which falls under the category of deception as to identity
False
In R v Dica, the court held that non-disclosure of HIV status constitutes a deceived nature of the act
False
In R v Linekar, the court held that the defendant's deception as to the purpose of the act undermined the victim's consent
False
In R v Bree, the court held that a person who is heavily intoxicated is capable of giving consent.
False
According to the 2-part test in R v C, a person's ability to understand the information relevant to making a choice is sufficient to establish capacity.
False
In R v C, the court held that a person's mental condition cannot undermine their capacity to give consent.
False
A person who gives consent out of fear for their safety is considered to have given valid consent.
False
The 2-part test in R v C only applies to cases where the victim has a history of bad mental health conditions.
False
The s76 presumption applies when the victim is deceived as to the defendant's identity, which includes pretending to be a celebrity personally known to the victim.
False
The R v Elbekkay case involved a defendant who pretended to be a victim's boyfriend, and the court held that the defendant's consent was negated.
False
Evidential presumptions under s75 can be rebutted with evidence, and the defendant's belief in consent is sufficient to rebut the presumption.
False
The R v Cicerelli case involved a defendant who was found guilty of having sex with a girl who was asleep at a party, and the court held that the defendant's belief in consent was sufficient to rebut the presumption.
False
A victim who has a physical disability that prevents them from communicating is considered to be under an evidential presumption under s75(2)(f).
False
The R v Jheeta case involved a defendant who sent anonymous text messages to the victim, purporting to be from the police, and the court held that the defendant's deception did not undermine the victim's consent.
False
Deception as to the context of sexual acts, such as non-disclosure of HIV, will always undermine the victim's consent.
False
The R v Lawerence case involved a defendant who knowingly and falsely assured the victim that he had a vasectomy, and the court held that the victim's consent was undermined.
False
External life pressures, such as homelessness, will always undermine the victim's consent.
False
The prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant intentionally deceived the victim in order to establish a presumption under s75.
False
When determining consent, which of the following is NOT a correct approach?
Start with s74, then to 75, then to 76
What is the correct categorization of deception as to the nature or purpose of the act?
Conclusive presumption under s76
In R v Devonald, what was the defendant's intention?
To humiliate the victim
What is the effect of deception as to the nature or purpose of the act on consent?
It always undermines consent
What is the burden of proof in establishing a presumption under s75?
The prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally deceived the victim
What is the consequence of a conclusive presumption under s76?
Consent is conclusively presumed not to have been given
What is the key concept established in the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
Definition of consent
In R v McFall, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's actions?
The defendant was found guilty of rape
Prior to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, how was consent defined?
By a common understanding of the jury
What is the significance of the R v Olugboja case?
It held that a victim's lack of resistance constitutes consent
What is a key concept in determining consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
Reasonable belief in consent
What is the significance of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
It established a codified definition of consent
In R v C, what was the reason why B's capacity to give consent was undermined?
B had a history of bad mental health conditions, manifesting themselves in manic episodes and delusions involving irrational fears for her safety
What are the two parts of the test for personal capacity in relation to choice?
They must be able to understand the information relevant to making it, and be able to weight the information in the balance and arrive at a choice
What is the relevance of B's history of bad mental health conditions in R v C?
It undermines B's capacity to make a real choice
What is the consequence of B's fear for her safety in R v C?
It is an indication of B's lack of capacity to give consent
What is the relationship between B's mental condition and her capacity to give consent?
B's mental condition can undermine her capacity to give consent in certain circumstances
What is the primary requirement for the s76 presumption to apply?
The victim is deceived as to the defendant's identity
What is the primary distinction between s74 and s75?
s74 deals with consent, while s75 deals with evidential presumptions
What is the primary requirement for the defendant to rebut the evidential presumption under s75?
The defendant must provide evidence that they reasonably believed the victim consented
What is the primary characteristic of deception that undermines consent?
Deception as to the physical sexual act
What is the primary distinction between R v Lawerence and R v Dica?
R v Lawerence deals with deception as to purpose, while R v Dica deals with deception as to context
What is the primary requirement for the prosecution to establish a presumption under s75?
The prosecution must prove that the defendant deceived the victim
What is the primary distinction between coercion and submission?
Coercion involves external pressure, while submission involves internal pressure
What is the primary requirement for the court to find lack of consent under s74?
The court must find that the victim did not agree by choice
What is the primary distinction between R v Jheeta and R v Elbekkay?
R v Jheeta deals with deception as to identity, while R v Elbekkay deals with deception as to attributes
What is the primary requirement for the court to find that the defendant's deception undermined the victim's consent?
The court must find that the defendant's deception was related to the sexual act
Study Notes
Sexual Offences Act 2003
- The Act sets out key concepts, including consent, sexual, and reasonable belief in consent, abolishing old law of honest belief
- Consent is defined in sections 74-76
Section 74: General Definition of Consent
- Consent exists if V agrees by choice, and has freedom and capacity to make that choice
- Agrees by choice (subjective personal autonomy)
- Must be positive acceptance
- No need to show struggle or resistance for lack of consent
- Freedom can be affected by:
- Coercion
- Deception
- Capacity (mental capacity)
Section 75: Evidential Presumptions
- Raising and rebutting presumptions
- Jury starts with no consent, D can bring evidence to rebut
- Presumptions can be rebutted with evidence
- D's belief in consent is insufficient to rebut presumption alone
- Presumptions include:
- Use of threat or violence against V
- Use of threat of violence against another
- V is unlawfully detained, D not (i.e. hostages)
- V is asleep or otherwise unconscious
- V has physical disability that prevents communicating
- Involuntary administration of drugs that stupefy or overpower V
Section 76: Conclusive Presumptions
- Situations where there is a conclusive presumption against consent
- Question of law for the judge, not the jury
- Presumptions include:
- Deception as to nature or purpose of the act (s76(2)(a))
- Deception as to identity (s76(2)(b))
- Both require D to have intention with respect to deception
Deception as to Nature or Purpose
- Deception as to nature or purpose of the act (s76(2)(a))
- Examples:
- R v Flattery: A deceived B into thinking sexual penetration was a medical operation
- R v Williams: A deceived B into thinking sexual act was a procedure to improve singing voice
Deception as to Identity
- Deception as to identity (s76(2)(b))
- Examples:
- R v Elbekkay: A pretended to be V's boyfriend, D intended to deceive V
- R v B: sexual infection is an attribute of D, risk of infection has to be viewed separately to consenting to sex
Capacity
- Capacity is specific to V and the choice that was made
- Examples:
- R v Bree: 'heavily intoxicated' may fail the test for capacity
- R v C: capacity can be undermined where B understands the nature of the act, but mental condition prevents her from making a real choice
- 2-part test for personal capacity in relation to choice:
- Must be able to understand the information relevant to making the choice
- Must be able to weigh the information in the balance and arrive at a choice
Test your understanding of sexual offences, including rape, assault, and consent, as outlined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This quiz covers key concepts, such as reasonable belief in consent and abolishing old law.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
