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

Causing someone to participate in sexual activity, e.g., female rape.

Engaging in/causing presence during sexual activity, with sexual gratification relating to complainer's presence.

Causing someone to see a sexual image of a person or genitals.

Sending sexual written/verbal communication or causing others to see/hear such communication.

A court consideration related to sexual gratification in certain cases, considering how the subject reacts to propositions.

A concept in sexual offence cases, a limited causal connection between actions and the offence.

A legal defense in sexual offence cases, claiming consent was given.

The requirement in some sexual offenses that gratification or alarm must relate to the complainer's presence, not just the sexual act itself.

Consent is invalid if a person is misled about the true nature of a sexual act, e.g., it is presented as a medical procedure.

Consent is invalid when a person is deceived about the true character of a sexual act, regardless of the specific details.

Consent is invalid if a person is deceived about the identity of the other party, leading to a lack of true consent.

Consent remains valid even if one party does not know the other's HIV status; the undisclosed status does not affect the nature of the act itself.

Consent is invalid if deceit is used to persuade sexual consent about condom usage, as it changes the agreed-upon nature of the act.

Consent is considered invalid when there's deception concerning the specific sexual act or method agreed upon.

Consent is valid when there is no deception about the details pertaining to the sexual act, e.g., a vasectomy.

Consent is invalid if one party is impersonating another known to the victim; this vitiates consent.

A defence available to those who reasonably believe a child is 16 or older. However, this defence is not valid if the accused has prior relevant charges or convictions. This defence has been ruled invalid by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as it violates Article 8: right to private and family life.

A defence applicable when the accused and the victim are within two years of each other in age. This defence is not applicable to crimes involving penetrative sexual activity or oral-genital contact, but it applies to other sexual offences.

A crime involving sexual activity between close blood relatives, such as siblings or parent and child. This offence is defined in the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

A crime involving sexual exposure or activities in public. This offence includes acts like indecent exposure, sexual acts in public, and public displays of sexual images. The definition excludes 'shameless indecency,' which is no longer a crime.

The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 abolished many common law offences like rape, sodomy, lewd and libidinous practices, and indecent behaviour. This act also abolished several statutory offences related to underage children and homosexual practices.