Karteikarten
Rape
Karten in diesem Stapel (26)
- 1Women can be accessories to rapeCogan v Leak (1975):
- 2- Until 1991 it was illegal for a husband to rape his wife - Abolished the ‘marital rape exemption’R v R (1991):
- 3Vagina was held to the general area of a woman and not only the anatomical partR v F (2002):
- 4- D may rape V when an initial consent was given and then revoked prior to D withdrawing - Confirmed under the new law in R v Leaver (2006)R v Kaitamaki (1985):
- 5For sentencing there is no need to establish what part was penetratedR v Ismail (2005):
- 6V was unaware she was giving consent to sexual intercourse - thought it was a surgical operationR v Flattery (1877):
- 7D persuaded V that he was opening her passage for her singing voice when they were having sexR v Williams (1923):
- 8- D failed to disclose his HIV + status to V prior to them having sex - omitted to tell V - Did not fall under s.76 because it was not intentional deception and V understood the nature of the actR v B (2007):
- 9- D knew that V would not have sex unless D used a condom - D initially wore it and then took it off - an intentional act of deception - Court said sex with or without a condom did not change the nature of the act - no s.76Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority (2011):
- 10- V told D she would only have sex if D did not ejaculate in her vagina - D failed to do so and V became pregnant - Issue of rape under s.74 but not s.76 since there is no deception as to natureR v DPP (2013):
- 11- D procured a prostitute, V, but never intended to pay her - Under the new law this would be deception as to the purpose of the act - V wanted moneyR v Linekar (1995):
- 12- V threatened D to stop their relationship and D sent messages from the police to V - Causes V to have pressure to have sex with D but there is no deception as to the purpose of the act since it is for sexual gratification - lies in s.74R v Jheeta (2008):
- 13Where D has multiple purposes which only some are shared by V this falls in s.74R v Bingham (2013):
- 14- D grabbed V and made threats to harm V if she did not comply - V said to D to do what he likes as long as he did not harm her - s.75 appliesR v Dagnall (2003):
- 15Court define immediately as ‘some point in the future'R v Constanza (1997):
- 16HOL says immediate is imminent not at some point in the future - too relaxed - within minutes or hoursR v Ireland & Burstow (1998):
- 17D kidnaps V - did not have sex with her so could not be rapeR v David T (2005):
- 18- Someone asleep or unconscious cancelled consent - partly unconscious is not enough - Unconsciousness needs no specific causeR v Larter (1995):
- 19- V was voluntarily intoxicated with alcohol but was also found with valium in her blood - D has deceived V as to her self-administrationR v Minas (2003):
- 20- Old law - D threatened V to call her parents if V did not have sex with D - Court said she had submitted to intercourse which was not consentR v Wellard (1978):
- 21- V agrees to have sex with D for money to buy some food - Court said she had submitted to intercourse - there was no consentR v Kirk (2008):
- 22- Courts were more interested in D1’s rape of V1 for legal reasons (V1’s second rape) - There was no forced abuse or real threat of violence - Courts confirmed that submission is not consent - need to look at the mind of V immediately before the act with the circumstances leading to V’s reactionR v Olugboja (1981):
- 23- Muddied the waters with Olugboja - V began consensual sexual relations with her father, D - V’s family convince her this is wrong and D gets convicted - Blurring the lines between reluctant acquiescence with submission - According to Matt Gibson it was a mistake by the courts: - Confused the terminology - Conflated submission - Obiter dicta and should be ignoredR v Watson (2015):
- 24- V remembers regaining consciousness to find D penetrating her - D said that even if V was intoxicated she was still capable of consenting - A drunken consent is no consentR v Bree:
- 25V consumed cannabis and alcohol and due to that amount was questioned as to whether she had the capacity to consent - D was convictedR v Hysa (2007):
- 26- Confirms Bree - Consideration has to be given as to the degree of consciousnessR v Kamki (2013):
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Rape, erstellt von Manon Picard am 18/01/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Manon Picard
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung