Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Announcements Posted on
Study Help needs new mods! 14-04-2014
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If D1 administers a substance into V's drink, and V drank it. V then gets in a taxi home, the substance causes V to advance for sex with the taxi driver, D2. She would not have done so if not for the substance. Unknown to D2 that the advances was due to the effects of the administered substance, D2 had sex with the V.

    Assuming that V was scantily dressed and was out from a club. Will D2 attract any liability in relation to sexual offences?

    From my understanding, this is an issue on consent and whether D2 has the reasonable belief to the consent.

    I'm arguing on the facts that because V was seen scantily dressed and was out from a club, there is no reason why the jury should find D2's belief unreasonable. As for the presumption about consent, S76 should not apply since the present case does not fall into any of the circumstances provided, I'm also submitting that S75 should not apply either since S75(1)(c) requires D2 to appreciate the existence of the circumstances.

    Anyone has any additional point to add or rebut? Please share, citing cases! =)
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlky1)
    If D1 administers a substance into V's drink, and V drank it. V then gets in a taxi home, the substance causes V to advance for sex with the taxi driver, D2. She would not have done so if not for the substance. Unknown to D2 that the advances was due to the effects of the administered substance, D2 had sex with the V.

    Assuming that V was scantily dressed and was out from a club. Will D2 attract any liability in relation to sexual offences?

    From my understanding, this is an issue on consent and whether D2 has the reasonable belief to the consent.

    I'm arguing on the facts that because V was seen scantily dressed and was out from a club, there is no reason why the jury should find D2's belief unreasonable. As for the presumption about consent, S76 should not apply since the present case does not fall into any of the circumstances provided, I'm also submitting that S75 should not apply either since S75(1)(c) requires D2 to appreciate the existence of the circumstances.

    Anyone has any additional point to add or rebut? Please share, citing cases! =)
    Maybe I'm misreading your argument but are you suggesting the belief is not unreasonable because V is scantily dressed and had been clubbing? If so, I'd reconsider this. This suggests that if any male had sex with her, it would be a reasonable belief because of her clothing and past location. Would it be lessreasonable had she been in jeans and jumper, comes out of the cinema and then advances on D2 for sex? I'd say what the key point there actually is is the fact she ASKS him for sex. If anything, the fact she's coming from a club is more damning because you can infer she'll be drunk and may not be able to consent/may be drugged.

    Other than that, I don't see any real issues with your argument.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    Maybe I'm misreading your argument but are you suggesting the belief is not unreasonable because V is scantily dressed and had been clubbing? If so, I'd reconsider this. This suggests that if any male had sex with her, it would be a reasonable belief because of her clothing and past location. Would it be lessreasonable had she been in jeans and jumper, comes out of the cinema and then advances on D2 for sex?
    Hey there, thanks for the reply!

    Yup, I'm moving towards that direction! I get your point, and it makes sense too. Would it be better or much clearer if I elaborate my argument saying that because no reasonable person would have thought that a girl will offer sex to a stranger, and with the facts forming the basis of the circumstances. It would be hard to argue that D2 did not take steps 'to ascertain whether B consents', in this case V, according to S1(2)?

    If I may use your point, probably I'll say that it may be a different situation if V was in proper clothes or comes out from cinema. Jury could find him reckless as to whether or not V consented. The key point here is whether at the time of asking, she has the genuine capacity in making decision.

    Would it be different? =)

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 7, 2012
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.