Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 Overview

NB v HM Adv 2017 = Reasonable belief in age is not a valid defense if prior convictions exist Stübing v Germany 2012 = Marginal appreciation for the criminalization of incest Webster v Dominick 2005 = Abolition of shameless indecency but not public indecency 3009 Act = Abolished common law offences related to sexual crimes

Reasonable Belief in Age = Defense only applies if the accused believed the child was 16 or older without prior convictions Age Proximity Defense = Applies when both individuals are within two years of age, excluding penetrative activity Incest (Criminal Law Consolidation) Act 1995 = Maintains criminalization of incest Public indecency = Criminalizes sexual acts in public despite the abolition of shameless indecency

Common law offenses of rape = Abolished by the 3009 Act Lewd and indecent behavior = Abolished by the 3009 Act Sodomy offenses = Abolished by the 3009 Act Sexual exposure = Remains a crime under public indecency

<p>Reasonable Belief in Age Defense = Not applicable with prior relevant charges or convictions Age Proximity Defense = Does not apply to penetrative sexual activity Criminal Law Consolidation Act = Retains certain offences like incest Public indecency = Not abolished, includes sexual acts in public</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>NB v HM Adv 2017 = Article 8 ECHR issues regarding reasonable belief Stübing v Germany 2012 = Evaluates the notion of incest criminalization Webster v Dominick 2005 = Clarifies distinctions between shameless indecency and public indecency 3009 Act = Introduced significant changes to sexual offense laws</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>s 4 = Causing another to participate in sexual activity (sexual coercion) s 5 = Coercing a person to be present during sexual activity s 6 = Coercing a person to look at a sexual image s 7 = Communicating indecently</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Financial help = May lead to actions of the victim, not the husband’s blame Third party presence = Watching a non-consensual act without consent Chain of causation = Short explanation for determining blame in cases of coercion Scottish law defense = Requires the threat of bodily harm</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Requires presence = Related to the presence of the complainer, not just gratification No watching requirement = The complainer does not need to actually watch the act Alarm in complaints = Requires sexual gratification or alarm in the complainer Consent defense = Defense involves the belief in consent or necessity for disclosure</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>s 4 = Delaying sexual gratification s 5 = Engaging in sexual activity in complainer’s presence s 6 = Causing another to look at sexual content s 7 = Sending sexual communication</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Intimate photograph disclosure = Covered under s 2 of the 2016 Act Public interest defense = Belief that disclosure was necessary for prosecution Consent in images = Relates primarily to genitals, not breasts Intercepted communication = Indecent communication doesn't require receipt</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>s 2 Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm = Disclosing or threatening to disclose an intimate photograph s 4 Sexual Coercion = Engaging someone in sexual activity against their will s 5 Presence during activity = Coercing a person to be present at sexual acts s 6 Looking at images = Causing another to view sexual images (still or moving)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Sex work consequence = May arise from a lack of financial support Non-consensual acts = Victim's actions complicate blame assignment Coercive threats = Required for some defenses in sexual coercion cases Presence necessity = Essential for certain sexual offences definitions</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>s 6 = Coercing someone to view sexual imagery s 7 = Sending or causing receipt of sexual communication s 4 = Engaging in non-consensual sexual activity s 5 = Coercing presence during sexual acts</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Williams = Deception invalidates consent when victim misled about nature of act Baillie v HM Advocate 2007 = Reinforced that deception about nature of conduct can invalidate consent R v B = Consent valid despite one party unaware of HIV status Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority = Deception about condom use vitiates consent</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Devenauld = Deception about identity of the person R (F) v DPP (Admin) = Deception regarding withdrawal method R v Lawrance = Deception about having had a vasectomy R v Williams = Deception regarding a medical procedure</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Baillie v HM Advocate 2007 = Victim misled about the act's true character Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority = Altered nature of the act due to condom deception R (F) v DPP (Admin) = Changed agreed terms of sexual activity R v B = No deception about the nature or purpose of the act itself</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Williams = Consent is invalid if deceived about the act's nature R v Devenauld = True consent is absent when identity is misrepresented R v Lawrance = Deception about characteristics does not vitiate consent Baillie v HM Advocate 2007 = Deception invalidates consent in sexual conduct</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority = Consent affected by deception regarding condom usage R (F) v DPP (Admin) = Withdrawal method deception altered consent terms R v B = Determined valid consent despite undisclosed HIV status R v Lawrance = Vasectomy deception unrelated to act's nature or purpose</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Baillie v HM Advocate 2007 = Reinforced principles regarding consent and deception R v Devenauld = Identified identity deception as affecting consent R v Williams = Established invalid consent due to mistaken medical belief R v B = Consent upheld even with undisclosed health status</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Williams = Misleading about medical nature of sexual act R v Devenauld = Impersonation for sexual engagement Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority = Deceptive practices regarding protection R (F) v DPP (Admin) = Misrepresentation of withdrawal as contraception</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Williams = Informed consent required to validate agreement R v B = Acknowledgment of consent despite lack of health disclosure R (F) v DPP (Admin) = Deception affects previously negotiated consent terms Baillie v HM Advocate 2007 = Sexual activity consent invalidated by deception</p> Signup and view all the answers