B1568 – Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendment and Reform) Bill 2020

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
B1568 –Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendment and Reform) Bill 2020: Jammy Duel MP







A
BILL
TO


Redefine the meaning of rape




BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—


1 Rape
In the Sexual Offences Act 2003, section (1) is amended from:

1 Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

To:

1 Rape
(1) A person (A) who engages in a sexual activity, regardless of its degree, with a person (B) commits an offence of rape if—
(a) unlawful force was used against B, or;
(b) force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to B was used, or;
(c) B was threatened or placed in fear that another person (C) will be subjected to grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, or death, or;
(d) B is rendered unconscious or was unconscious at the start of the sexual activity, or;
(e) B is administered, by force or the threat thereof, or without consent of B a drug, intoxicant or any substance substantially impairing the ability of B to consent to a sexual activity, or;
(f) B is sexually penetrated with no professional purpose being served, or;
(g) B was sexually penetrated under the pretense that sexual penetration served a professional purpose when no professional purpose was served, or;
(h) incites or causes B to engage in a sexual activity, and;
(i) B does not consent to the sexual activity, or;
(j) A does not reasonably believe B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of a first degree sexual activity offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(5) A person guilty of of a second degree sexual activity under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

2 Rape of a child under 13
Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended from:

5 Rape of a child under 13

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and
(b) the other person is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

To:

2 Rape of a Child under 13
(1) A person (A) commits an offence of rape if—
(a) B engages in a sexual activity with person B, or;
(b) B is sexually penetrated with no professional purpose being served, or;
(c) B was sexually penetrated under the pretense that sexual penetration served a professional purpose when no professional purpose was served, or;
(d) incites or causes B to engage in a sexual activity, and;
(e) B is under the age of 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(3) A person guilty of a first degree sexual activity offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(4) A person guilty of a second degree sexual activity offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

3 Rape of a child over 13
Add to the sexual offences Act 2003:

3 Rape of a child over 13
(1) A person 18 or over (A) commits an offence of rape if—
(a) B engages in a sexual activity with person B, or;
(b) B is sexually penetrated with no professional purpose being served, or;
(c) B was sexually penetrated under the pretense that sexual penetration served a professional purpose when no professional purpose was served, or;
(d) incites or causes B to engage in a sexual activity, and;
(e) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe B is 16 or over, or;
(f) B is under the age of 13
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(3) A person guilty of first or second degree sexual activity offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

4 Interpretations in sections (78) and (79)
Add to section (78):

78 Sexual
(1) Something is ‘sexual’ if a reasonable person would consider that—
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or;
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.
(2) A first degree sexual activity is—
(a) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vagina or anus or mouth, or;
(b) contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, scrotum, or anus, or;
(c) contact between the penis, vulva, scrotum or breast and another penis, vulva, scrotum or breast, or;
(d) the penetration, however slight, of the vagina or penis or anus of another by any part of the body or any foreign object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(i) a ‘foreign object’ is an object, substance, instrument, or device that is not part of a human body.
(3) A second degree sexual activity is—
(a) touching, or causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, the vulva, penis, scrotum, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, or kissing to achieve arousal or gratification.
(b) Touching may be accomplished by any part of the body or an object.

Add to section (79):

(11) ‘Unlawful force’ means an act of force done without legal justification or excuse.
(12) ‘Grievous bodily harm’ means to cause serious bodily injury, including but not limited to:
(a) fractured or dislocated bones, or
(b) deep cuts, or
(c) torn members of the body, or
(d) serious damage to internal organs, or
(e) and other severe bodily injuries
(f) injuries do not need to be permanent in nature.
(3) “Threatening or placing in fear” is a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to the wrongful action contemplated by the communication or action.
(a) it must be proven the person who made a threat intended to carry out the threat or had the ability to carry out the threat.
(13) ‘Professional purpose’ is sexual penetration conducted for the purposes of providing medical treatment.
(a) ‘medical treatment’ is the provision of services by a medical practitioner to prevent injury, save life, treat injury or illness or test for illness.
(b) a ‘medical professional’ is someone practicing their duties under the authority of the General Medical Council (GMC) or the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).

5 Repeals

Sections (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are hereby repealed.

6 Extent, commencement and short title
(1) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This Act comes into force one month after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Rape Reform Act 2020

Notes

Whereas other bills in recent times tinker around the edges with the definition of rape or seek to change genders used in the Sexual Offence Act 2003, this a ground-up rewrite of the concept of rape against adults, children between the ages of 13 and 16, and children under the age of 16.

The main change from the current law is the abolition of general sexual assault against a person in favour of merging sexual assault into the definition of rape - including the use of objects in penetration - with difference sentences for the seriousness of the rape. As a result, sections (2) through to (4) and (6) through to (10) have been abolished and their offences merged into a rewritten section (1) covering general rape, section (2) covering rape of under 13s, and section (3) covering rape of under 16s.

Note, the sentences for any crimes have not been changed and neither have any new crimes been created nor abolished.

On the definitions, all are directly copied from either existing UK law, or law from Canada, Australia and the US. Existing jurisdictions are going to likely have tighter definitions than what we can think of.

A link to the sections abolished: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1
Last edited by Andrew97; 7 months ago
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
In the absence of anyone with superior knowledge in this area suggesting otherwise, I think I like this.
0
username5228090
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 months ago
#3
Third time lucky? Well done to the honourable member for a very well written bill.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
I'm surprised the speaker allowed this, especially given that we didn't do anything towards this because we assumed the speaker would say no.

I think there are problems with this bill.

The definition of second degree sexual activity needs the word "forced" to qualify it.
Why is it rape of a child over 13 if the child is under 13?
The stuff about professional purpose should be and not or. otherwise a doctor examining a vaginal fungal infection of a 10 year old is raping her...

There are probably more but that's just at first glance.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
(Original post by Aph)
I'm surprised the speaker allowed this, especially given that we didn't do anything towards this because we assumed the speaker would say no.

I think there are problems with this bill.

The definition of second degree sexual activity needs the word "forced" to qualify it.
Why is it rape of a child over 13 if the child is under 13?
The stuff about professional purpose should be and not or. otherwise a doctor examining a vaginal fungal infection of a 10 year old is raping her...

There are probably more but that's just at first glance.
I would assume for the very same reason it is rape of a child over 13 if the child is under 13 in the current Act. Reading the current act, if the child is under 13 it prevents the defence claiming they thought the child was over 16. They can claim a 14 year old appeared over 16, they can't claim a 13 year old did.

You can't insert "forced" there. If it had to be forced it would leave situations of a 15 year old consenting to kissing a 19 year old fine. That's currently illegal. The forced classification is inserted into the main text where there's a qualification of consent in the proposed 1(1)i and blanket bans in the 2 new sections covering children
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 months ago
#6
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I would assume for the very same reason it is rape of a child over 13 if the child is under 13 in the current Act. Reading the current act, if the child is under 13 it prevents the defence claiming they thought the child was over 16. They can claim a 14 year old appeared over 16, they can't claim a 13 year old did.

You can't insert "forced" there. If it had to be forced it would leave situations of a 15 year old consenting to kissing a 19 year old fine. That's currently illegal. The forced classification is inserted into the main text where there's a qualification of consent in the proposed 1(1)i and blanket bans in the 2 new sections covering children
I see you have not read your own act. This Act defines sex with under 16 year olds and under 13 year olds as two separate crimes, but under 13 year olds are included in the under 16 year olds definition...

fair. Although this has the interesting effect that it outlaws spanking as a punishment I have realised.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
This Bill does not warrant a response because I do not consider it legitimate. It is a copy and paste of section 4 of our Bill from yesterday and Glaz’s bill from a few weeks ago.

Andrew97 I strongly urge you to think again and reject this item for being a repeat item and thus unconstitutional in nature.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 months ago
#8
(Original post by Aph)
I see you have not read your own act. This Act defines sex with under 16 year olds and under 13 year olds as two separate crimes, but under 13 year olds are included in the under 16 year olds definition...

fair. Although this has the interesting effect that it outlaws spanking as a punishment I have realised.
I refer you to the real life Sexual Offences Act 2003. Sex with an under 13 yo and sex with an over 13 yo/under 16 yo are two separate crimes, but under 13 year olds are included in the under 16 year olds definition...

Read sections 9 and 5 of the RL act. There's a reason some things are copy and pastes from RL
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 7 months ago
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 months ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
This Bill does not warrant a response because I do not consider it legitimate. It is a copy and paste of section 4 of our Bill from yesterday and Glaz’s bill from a few weeks ago.

Andrew97 I strongly urge you to think again and reject this item for being a repeat item and thus unconstitutional in nature.
The bill is significantly different. Stop reeeeing
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 months ago
#10
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I refer you to the real life Sexual Offences Act 2003. Sex with an under 13 yo and sex with an over 13 yo/under 16 yo are two separate crimes, but under 13 year olds are included in the under 16 year olds definition...

Read sections 9 and 5 of the RL act. There's a reason some things are copy and pastes from RL
Yes, one is rape and one is "sexual activity with a minor". The under 13 clause is for just rape only in the original act and sexual assault falls under the under 16 year old clause. You have merged sexual assault and rape and that means you should have unmerged under 13 and between 13 and 16. You clearly haven't read the bill properly.

That then brings me to a new point, your punishments are all over the place. for sex with a 15 year old I could be charged with:

(2) imprisonment for life under the section.
(3) a term not exceeding 6 months or a term not exceeding 14 years for a first or second degree offence.

That makes no sense whatsoever... I see you were being lazy.

You've also completely abandoned normal numbering procededures and that upsets me greatly.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 months ago
#11
(Original post by Aph)
Yes, one is rape and one is "sexual activity with a minor". The under 13 clause is for just rape only in the original act and sexual assault falls under the under 16 year old clause. You have merged sexual assault and rape and that means you should have unmerged under 13 and between 13 and 16. You clearly haven't read the bill properly.

That then brings me to a new point, your punishments are all over the place. for sex with a 15 year old I could be charged with:

(2) imprisonment for life under the section.
(3) a term not exceeding 6 months or a term not exceeding 14 years for a first or second degree offence.

That makes no sense whatsoever... I see you were being lazy.

You've also completely abandoned normal numbering procededures and that upsets me greatly.
Why should he unmerge them? If the intention's to make both rape it works. I'm reading the bill and it makes sense to me

I didn't write the bill. They look like typing errors
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 months ago
#12
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Why should he unmerge them? If the intention's to make both rape it works. I'm reading the bill and it makes sense to me

I didn't write the bill. They look like typing errors
Because you merged rape and sexual assault in this bill. In the OG bill they were separate. If you had sex with a 14 year old and they consented then it was not rape but sexual contact with a minor.
Basically you are repeating the law in two articles and it’s a waste of space.

I meant you as in the Libertarian party.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 months ago
#13
I look forward to hearing the Speaker's ruling on this, as I am quite angry to see a bill with the same intention brought before the house on the third occasion in the same term.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 months ago
#14
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
It's truly getting out of hand.
It's truly getting worse.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 months ago
#15
Surely the resubmission restrictions only apply to verbatim the same bill, not a bill that happens to do a similar thing, otherwise it's not the same bill?
0
Pugglet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 months ago
#16
I have issues with this one
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 months ago
#17
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Surely the resubmission restrictions only apply to verbatim the same bill, not a bill that happens to do a similar thing, otherwise it's not the same bill?
Andrew confirmed otherwise in the bar when the first bill was withdrawn,
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 months ago
#18
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Surely the resubmission restrictions only apply to verbatim the same bill, not a bill that happens to do a similar thing, otherwise it's not the same bill?
Pretty sure some of the rejected submissions in the division lobby say otherwise but I can't find them easily on my phone.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 months ago
#19
(Original post by Connor27)
This Bill does not warrant a response because I do not consider it legitimate. It is a copy and paste of section 4 of our Bill from yesterday and Glaz’s bill from a few weeks ago.

Andrew97 I strongly urge you to think again and reject this item for being a repeat item and thus unconstitutional in nature.
It it were a copy and paste of your bill it would read like this:

"4. Misandristic Definitions of Rape
(1) Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is to be amended from:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

to:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus, mouth or another orifice that a reasonable person would assume was used by A for sexual gratification of another person (B) with A's penis or another item that a reasonable person would assume was used in a sex act (for example, a dildo)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

(2) Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is to be amended from:

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and
(b) the other person is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

to:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus, mouth or another orifice that a reasonable person would assume was used by A for sexual gratification of another person (B) with A's penis or another item that a reasonable person would assume was used in a sex act (for example, a dildo) and
(b) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life."

Except it wouldn't because I'd have culled all the irrelevant bits in bold because they do nothing, and I could do the same with Glaz's but fundamentally it would be exactly the same, look nothing like this bill and would have all the superfluous bits removed making it a few lines long. If you or Glaz had done it right the first time instead of taking Section 2, writing it poorly, and integrating it into section 1 this would hardly be necessary, alas neither of you got anywhere near close.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 months ago
#20
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Why should he unmerge them? If the intention's to make both rape it works. I'm reading the bill and it makes sense to me

I didn't write the bill. They look like typing errors
You forget Aph is a fan of nonces.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (489)
33.36%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (610)
41.61%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (299)
20.4%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (68)
4.64%

Watched Threads

View All