Rape and Other Non-Consensual Sexual Offences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
In the Privy Council on Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Pitcairn Islands
IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PITCAIRN ISLANDS No. of 2004 BETWEEN STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN First Appellant LEN CALVIN DAVIS BROWN Second Appellant LEN CARLISLE BROWN Third Appellant DENNIS RAY CHRISTIAN Fourth Appellant CARLISLE TERRY YOUNG Fifth Appellant RANDALL KAY CHRISTIAN Sixth Appellant A N D THE QUEEN Respondent CASE FOR STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN AND LEN CARLISLE BROWN PETITIONERS' SOLICITORS: Alan Taylor & Co Solicitors - Privy Council Agents Mynott House, 14 Bowling Green Lane Clerkenwell, LONDON EC1R 0BD ATTENTION: Mr D J Moloney FACSIMILE NO: 020 7251 6222 TELEPHONE NO: 020 7251 3222 6 PART I - INTRODUCTION CHARGES The Appellants have been convicted in the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court of the following: (a) Stevens Raymond Christian Charges (i) Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961 and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x4); (ii) Rape contrary to s14 of the Judicature Ordinance 1970 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Sentence 4 years imprisonment (b) Len Carlisle Brown Charges Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961, the Judicature Ordinance 1970, and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x2). Sentence 2 years imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention The sentences have been suspended and the Appellants remain on bail pending the determination of this appeal. HUMAN RIGHTS In relation to human rights issues, contrary to an earlier apparent concession by the Public Prosecutor that the Human Rights Act 1978 applied to the Pitcairn Islands, it would appear not to have been extended to them, at least in so far as the necessary protocols to the Convention have not been signed to enable Pitcairners to appear before the European Court: R (Quark Fisheries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2005] 3 WLR 7 837 (Tab ). -
Marital Rape: a Higher Standard Is in Order
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice Volume 1 (1994) Issue 1 William & Mary Journal of Women and Article 8 the Law October 1994 Marital Rape: A Higher Standard Is in Order Linda Jackson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Linda Jackson, Marital Rape: A Higher Standard Is in Order, 1 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 183 (1994), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol1/iss1/8 Copyright c 1994 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl MARITAL RAPE: A HIGHER STANDARD IS IN ORDER LINDA JACKSON* Marriage is the only actual bondage known to our law. There remain no legal slaves, except the mistress of every house.1 ... [H]owever brutal a tyrant she may be unfortunately chained to ... [her husband] can claim from her and enforce the lowest degradation of a human being, that of being made the instru- ment of an animal function contrary to her inclinations.2 John Stuart Mill It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property, etc., if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right. Not one wife in a thousand can do that now.3 Lucy Stone Women, particularly married women, have advanced a great deal since the time of John Stuart Mill and Lucy Stone.4 Mill and Stone's concerns regarding marital rape, however, are jus- tified even today. -
PDF/Stern Review Acc FINAL.Pdf> Accessed 25Th January 2010, 12
Durham E-Theses The role of human rights in determining whether complainants of a sexual oence and/or defendants charged with an oence under the Sexual Oences Act 2003 should receive anonymity Taylor, Laura How to cite: Taylor, Laura (2014) The role of human rights in determining whether complainants of a sexual oence and/or defendants charged with an oence under the Sexual Oences Act 2003 should receive anonymity, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9477/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 1 The role of human rights in determining whether complainants of a sexual offence and/or defendants charged with an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 should receive anonymity By Laura Emily Taylor ABSTRACT A 2010 proposal to extend anonymity in rape cases to rape defendants underlined the continuation of a long running, highly politicised debate, centred on whether one or both parties in a rape case should receive anonymity. -
MARITAL RAPE and RELATED SEXUAL OFFENCES: a REVIEW of the PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to PART XII of the CRIMES ORDINANCE U Robyn Emerton'
MARITAL RAPE AND RELATED SEXUAL OFFENCES: A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PART XII OF THE CRIMES ORDINANCE U Robyn Emerton' A recent bill in Hong Kong proposes a number of amendments to the offence of rape and other related sexual offences as they apply to marriedpersons. Part A of this article discusses the proposed amendments to the offence of rape and examines the case law under the analogous English legislation, with a particularfocus on the House of Lords' decision of R v R [19921 1 AC 599 and its relevance to Hong Kong law. Part B considers the effect of the proposed amendments on a number of related sexual offences, in particularthe effect of the new definition of "unlawful sexual intercourse". It is argued that, whilst the amendments to rape and several other key offences are to be warmly welcomed, this new definition is likely to cause confusion and may also reduce the protection currently afforded to certain categories of women against sexual offences committed by their husbands, thus necessitating further review and reform. Introduction On 10 July 2001, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2001 (the "Bill") was introduced into the Hong Kong Legislative Council.' Part V of the Bill sets out a number of amendments to Part XII (Sexual and Related Offences) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), which are primarily intended to make clear that marital rape is an offence and to ensure that all other sexual offences apply to non-consensual intercourse between married persons. Research Assistant Professor, University of Hong Kong. This article is based in part on the author's submission to the Legal Policy Division on its Consultation Paper on Marital Rape and Related Sexual Offences and her subsequent correspondence with the Legal Policy Division. -
Sexual Offences Act, 1956 4 & 5 Eliz
Sexual Offences Act, 1956 4 & 5 ELIz. 2 CH. 69 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I OFFENCES, AND THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES Intercourse by force, intimidation, etc. Section 1. Rape. 2. Procurement of woman by threats. 3. Procurement of woman by false pretences. 4. Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse. Intercourse with girls under sixteen 5. Intercourse with girl under thirteen. 6. Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen. Intercourse with defectives 7. Intercourse with an idiot or imbecile. 8. Intercourse with defective. 9. Procurement of defective. Incest 10. Incest by a man. 11. Incest by a woman. Unnatural offences 12. Buggery. 13. Indecency between men. Assaults 14. Indecent assault on a woman. 15. Indecent assault on a man. 16. Assault with intent to commit buggery. CH. 69 Sexual Offences Act, 1956 4 & 5 ELiz. 2 Abduction Section 17. Abduction of woman by force or for the sake of her property. 18. Fraudulent abduction of heiress from parent or guardian. 19. Abduction of unmarried girl under eighteen from parent or guardian. 20. Abduction of unmarried girl under sixteen from parent or guardian. 21. Abduction of defective from parent or guardian. Prostitution, procuration, etc. 22. Causing prostitution of women. 23. Procuration of girl under twenty-one. 24. Detention of woman in brothel or other premises. 25. Permitting girl under thirteen to use premises for intercourse. 26. Permitting girl between thirteen and sixteen to use premises for intercourse. 27. Permitting defective to use premises for intercourse. 28. Causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under sixteen. -
Public Annex
UNITED IT-04-75-AR73.1 378 A378 - A23 NATIONS 02 December 2015 SF International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-04-75-AR73.1 Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 2 December 2015 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: A Bench of the Appeals Chamber Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date: 2 December 2015 THE PROSECUTOR v. GORAN HADŽIĆ PUBLIC ANNEX BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION’S URGENT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM CONSOLIDATED DECISION ON THE CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Douglas Stringer Counsel for Goran Had`i}: Mr. Zoran Živanović Mr. Christopher Gosnell IT-04-75-AR73.1 377 BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION’S URGENT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM CONSOLIDATED DECISION ON THE CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS Table of Contents: 1. CASE LAW OVERVIEW: .............................................................................3 2. CASE LAW CATEGORISED BY COUNTRY / COURT: A. AUSTRALIA .........................................................................................................6 B. CANADA ...........................................................................................................60 C. ECtHR ...........................................................................................................128 D. ECCC ............................................................................................................148 E. ICC.................................................................................................................182 -
PGA V the QUEEN* MARITAL RAPE in AUSTRALIA
CASE NOTE PGA v THE QUEEN * MARITAL RAPE IN AUSTRALIA: THE ROLE OF REPETITION, REPUTATION AND FICTION IN THE COMMON LAW KOS LESSES† This case note considers the historical development and validity of the husband’s immunity at common law from prosecution for rape in light of the recent High Court case of PGA v The Queen. The original written source of the immunity is examined along with the subsequent treatment of that source in relevant cases and well-known textbooks of criminal law. Despite widely held belief in its validity, it is argued that the immunity was never properly established as a principle of the common law. The case note also considers the fiction of the unity of husband and wife that underpinned the immunity and exposes how the immunity was purportedly maintained into the 20th century despite disbelief in this fiction. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 787 II PGA v The Queen in the High Court ..................................................................... 789 A Introduction ................................................................................................. 789 B The Majority Judgment............................................................................... 789 C The Dissenting Judgments ......................................................................... 793 * (2012) 245 CLR 355. † BA, LLB (Hons) (Adel); Prosecutor, South Australian Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am grateful to Ngaire Naffine, Bonython Professor of Law at Adelaide Law School, for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, and to Caryl Lambourn, former English teacher at Norwood High School, who has not stopped correcting my gram- mar and syntax. I am also grateful for the valuable suggestions made by the anonymous referees. Any errors that remain are mine alone. The article contains my personal views and not those of the Director of Public Prosecutions. -
The Parole Board for England and Wales Guidance to Members On
The Parole Board for England and Wales Guidance to members on LASPO Act 2012 – test for release Revised Guidance – December 2013 LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) NEW SENTENCES AND TESTS FOR RELEASE This Act came into force on 3 December 2012. The significant changes that affect the Parole Board are: 1. Abolition of the IPP/EPP 2. Introduction of a new extended determinate sentence (EDS) 3. Change in the test for release for existing DCR, 1967 and ‘old style’ extended sentence cases 4. Power given to the Secretary of State to change the release test by statutory instrument 5. Arrangements for determinate recalls 6. New automatic life sentence 1. ABOLITION OF THE IPP/EPP Anyone convicted (the date the offence was committed is immaterial) on or after 3 December 2012 will not be eligible for an IPP or EPP. Existing IPP prisoners’ status is unaffected. 2. EDS (Extended Determinate Sentence) Section 124 of LASPO creates the EDS by inserting a new section 224A into the 2003 Act. Schedule 18 of LASPO inserts a new Schedule 15B into the 2003 Act. Schedule 15B (attached at Annex A) lists 44 offences of the more serious kind. The longer list of specified offences still exists under Schedule 15 (attached at Annex B). An EDS will be imposed on an offender who, if over 18: • where he is convicted of a Schedule 15 offence on or after 3 December 2012 (regardless of when the offence was committed); and • is adjudged to present a significant risk to the public of serious harm; and • is not suitable for a life sentence; and either • he has a previous conviction for a Schedule 15B offence or • if the court was minded to impose an extended sentence, the custodial would be at least 4 years. -
Download 495 Kb
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS In the Dudgeon case, The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary session in application of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court and composed of the following judges: Mr. R. RYSSDAL, President, Mr. M. ZEKIA, Mr. J. CREMONA, Mr. THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON, Mr. W. GANSHOF VAN DER MEERSCH, Mrs. D. BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, Mr. D. EVRIGENIS, Mr. G. LAGERGREN, Mr. L. LIESCH, Mr. F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, Mr. F. MATSCHER, Mr. J. PINHEIRO FARINHA, Mr. E. GARCIA DE ENTERRIA, Mr. L.-E. PETTITI, Mr. B. WALSH, Sir Vincent EVANS, Mr. R. MACDONALD, Mr. C. RUSSO, Mr. R. BERNHARDT, and also Mr. M.-A. EISSEN, Registrar, and Mr. H. PETZOLD, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 and 25 April and from 21 to 23 September 1981, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The Dudgeon case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"). The case originated in an application against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission on 22 May 1976 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a United Kingdom citizen, Mr. Jeffrey Dudgeon. 2. The Commission's request was lodged with the registry of the Court on 18 July 1980, within the period of three months laid down by Articles 32 par. 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. -
Marital Rape - Exemption Under Indian Penal Code: Quest for Recognition and Liability
Winter Issue 2017 ILI Law Review Vol. II MARITAL RAPE - EXEMPTION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE: QUEST FOR RECOGNITION AND LIABILITY Dr. Vandana Abstract Violence is at its worst manifestation when occurs within the family – a unit which is supposedly the safest and the most protected zone in human life. The impact and consequences of family violence are most devastating when such the perpetrator of such violence is the husband – the man who is supposed to be the protector and provider of the woman. Unfortunately, the sexual violence is inflicted by the husbands in the name of irrevocability of consent to matrimonial cohabitation. The society and the legislature do not even recognize such sexual violence by the husbands, which seriously impinges upon the status of women in the society and maintains the status quo of the women’s subjugated position in the family as well as the society. I Introduction ……………………………………….............................. II Concept of Marital Rape ………………………………...................... III The Incidence and Causes …………………………............................ IV Marital Rape as Property Crime -The Marxist Explanation ...…… V The Legislative Developments and the ‘Age of Consent’…………... VI The Present Legal Position ...………………………………………… VII The Foreign Law on Marital Rape. ………………..……………… VIII The Recent Debate Before Judiciary ………………………………... IX The Supreme Court Judgment in Independent Thought v. Union of India……………………………………………………………………. X Conclusion …………………………………………............................. I INTRODUCTION VIOLENCE IS a coercive mechanism to assert one’s will over another, in order to prove or feel a sense of power. Defined in plain terms - “Violence” is destruction, suffering or death, which is deliberately inflicted for the achievement of a purpose, which is political in nature.1 Violence is a Associate Professor of Law, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi. -
Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED]
Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] CONTENTS Section PART 1 RAPE ETC. Rape 1 Rape Sexual assault by penetration 1A Sexual assault by penetration Sexual assault and other sexual offences 2 Sexual assault 3 Sexual coercion 4 Coercing a person into being present during a sexual activity 5 Coercing a person into looking at a sexual image 6 Communicating indecently etc. 7 Sexual exposure 7A Voyeurism 7B Interpretation of section 7A 8 Administering a substance for sexual purposes PART 2 CONSENT AND REASONABLE BELIEF Consent 9 Meaning of “consent” and related expressions 10 Circumstances in which conduct takes place without free agreement 10A Consent: capacity while asleep or unconscious 11 Consent: scope and withdrawal Reasonable belief 12 Reasonable belief PART 3 MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS Mentally disordered persons 13 Capacity to consent SP Bill 11B Session 3 (2009) ii Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill PART 4 CHILDREN Young children 14 Rape of a young child 14A Sexual assault on a young child by penetration 15 Sexual assault on a young child 16 Causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity 17 Causing a young child to be present during a sexual activity 18 Causing a young child to look at a sexual image 19 Communicating indecently with a young child etc. 19A Sexual exposure to a young child 19B Voyeurism towards a young child 20 Belief that child had attained the age of 13 years Older children 21 Having intercourse with an older child 21A Engaging in penetrative sexual activity with or towards an older child 22 Engaging in sexual activity with or towards an older child 23 Causing an older child to participate in a sexual activity 24 Causing an older child to be present during a sexual activity 25 Causing an older child to look at a sexual image 26 Communicating indecently with an older child etc. -
Review of Expunging of Criminal Convictions for Historical Gay Sex Offences
Review of expunging of criminal convictions for historical gay sex offences Consultation Paper WP No 74 February 2016 blank left intentionally page This Queensland Law Reform Commission Review of expunging of criminal convictions for historical gay sex offences Consultation Paper WP No 74 February 2016 Postal address: PO Box 13312, George Street Post Shop, Qld 4003 Telephone: (07) 3247 4544 Facsimile: (07) 3247 9045 Email: [email protected] Website: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au © State of Queensland (Queensland Law Reform Commission) 2016. ISBN: 978-0-9874889-6-1 SUBMISSIONS You are invited to make submissions on the issues raised in this Consultation Paper. Submissions should be sent to: Email: [email protected] Facsimile: (07) 3247 9045 The Secretary Queensland Law Reform Commission PO Box 13312 George Street Post Shop Qld 4003 An appointment to make an oral submission may be made by telephoning: (07) 3247 4544 Closing date: 29 March 2016 PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Any personal information you provide in a submission will be collected by the Queensland Law Reform Commission for the purposes of this review. Unless clearly indicated otherwise, the Commission may refer to or quote from your submission and refer to your name in future publications for this review. Further, future publications for this review will be published on the Commission’s website. Please indicate clearly if you do not want your submission, or any part of it, or your name to be referred to in a future publication for the review. Please note however that all submissions may be subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), and access applications for submissions, including those for which confidentiality has been requested, will be determined in accordance with that Act.