Vince re Tina Since there has been penetration, but not by Vince’s penis, the offences that Vince could be liable for would be sexual assault, assault by penetration and sexual activity with a child. Assault by penetration (s.2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus of assault by penetration is the penetration, by the defendant, of the vagina or anus got another person with a part of the defendant's body or anything else. The penetration must be sexual and the victim does not consent to the penetration. The mens rea of assault by penetration is the intention two commit an act of penetration where the defendants does not have the reasonable belief of the consent of the victim. Applying the actus reus to the facts: Vince has …show more content…
penetrated Tina’s vagina with his finger. The penetration is clearly sexual in nature however Tina has consented to the act and therefore the actus reus of the offence is not satisfied. Applying the Mens Rea to the facts: Whilst Vince has intentionally penetrated Tina’s vagina, he has done so with reasonable belief that she is consenting to the penetration.
Therefore he does not have the required mens rea for the offence. Both the actus reus and the mens rea are appear to be incomplete in this situation and it is unlikely that's Vince is guilty of this offends Sexual assault (s. 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus of sexual assault is the sexual touching of another person who does not consent to that touching. Section 78 outlines that touching is what a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ‘sexual’. Where ambiguity exists, a jury can consider whether the circumstances surrounding the conduct including the defendant’s purpose amounts to a sexual nature. The mens rea of a sexual assault is that the touching of the victim must be intentional where there is a lack of reasonable belief that the victim is consenting. Applying the actus reus to the facts: Vince has touched another person by kissing Tina and also stroking Tina’s breasts. This touching would be considered sexual and is in no way ambiguous. However, Tina has consented to this contact and therefore the actus reus of sexual assault has not been …show more content…
satisfied. Applying the Mens Rea to the facts: Whilst Vince has intentionally touched Tina there was a reasonable belief that Tina it Was consenting as she made it very clear to Vince that she was enjoying it. Therefore does not have the required mens rea for the offence. Again, both the actus reus and the mens rea appear to be incomplete, so it is therefore unlikely that is Vince would be guilty of the offence. Sexual activity with a child (s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus of sexual activity with a child is that the defendant must be aged 18 either and has touched the victim the sexual manner. The victim must be under 16. There are no requirements to prove a lack of consent for this offence. The mens rea of sexual activity with a child is that the touching must be intentional. Tina is 15 years old and therefore, where the victim is aged between 13 and 15 there must be a lack of reasonable belief that the victim is aged 16 or over. If Tina had been under 13, there would be strict liability as to her age with no defence concerning whether the victim was believed to be older. Applying the actus reus to the facts: Vince is 18 years of age and has touched Tina as outlined above who is 15 years of age. The touching is clearly of a sexual nature as discussed above. Where the touching involves penetration of any kind the offence is indictable only, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. All other forms of touching are either-way offences which still hold the maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Whether defendants is under 18 years old s.13 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies, with the maximum penalty being that of five years imprisonment. Applying the Mens Rea to the facts: Whilst Vince has intentionally touched Tina it would have to be established that there was a lack of belief that Tina was older than 16. This would appear to be difficult to prove as Vince did honestly believe Tina was older than 16. Vince met Tina in a public house, Tina was drinking within the premises and Tina specifically told Vince that she was a student at the University. If it could not be proved that Vince lacked belief that Tina was 16 or older, and based on the facts it would appear to be the likely outcome, then Vince would not be guilty of this offence. Will re Una Will could have committed offences under ss. 1, 2 and 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by engaging in sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim. Una is 16 years old and is therefore old enough not to be considered under the offence of sexual activities with children under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Rape (s. 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus of rape is penile penetration by the defendant of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person who at the time does not consent to the penetration. The mens rea of rape is the intentional penetration where a lack of reasonable belief in the consent of the victim exists. Applying the actus reus and mens rea to the facts: Will has engaged in sexual intercourse with Una. Therefore, he has satisfied the first elements of the actus reus. It is however unclear whether Una has consented to this act. Will believes that she has due to the noises that she makes during the sexual intercourse, however, S. 74 defines ‘consent' as a person agreeing by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It could be argued that Una lacked the capacity to consent due to intoxication in accordance with s. 74. The Court of Appeal held in R v. Benjamin Bree [2007] 2 ALL ER 676 that where a person has lost their capacity to choose whether to have intercourse then that is rape. If however a person maintains that capacity, regardless of intoxication levels, then this would not be rape. In this scenario it would have to be established whether Una still maintained the capacity to consent, and it would be likely, despite her noises, that if she was asleep at the time then Una would lack that capacity. It could also satisfy the provisions s. 75. Since the pair are locked inside the room it could be argued that, in accordance with s. 75(2c) that the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act. It could also be argued that Una was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act at the time of sexual intercourse (s. 75(2d)). Una is described as ‘falling asleep due to intoxication’. it must be established whether she was asleep at the time, and therefore unable to consent, or she was still awake and able to provide consent. Will has clearly intentionally penetrated Una.
To avoid conviction Will would look to provide evidence to show that he believed that Una had consented, was fully aware of the act and was not being detained at the time. His belief will not be enough on its own, there must be clear consent. Will would indicate that the noises Una had made during sexual intercourse showed she was consensual and aware, and that Vince had locked the door without his knowledge. The prosecution would have to prove that there was a lack of reasonable belief in consent, and would probably do so by establishing that Una did not have the capacity to consent. This will be determined by evaluating all the circumstances of the
case. Assault by penetration (s.2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus and the mens rea are outlined above in Vince re Tina Applying the actus reus to the facts: Will has had sexual intercourse with Una clearly satisfying the first elements of the actus reus. Again, the issue of consent exists. If Una was asleep at the time of sexual intercourse then the actus reus is satisfied. Applying the Mens Rea to the facts: The mens rea is effectively the same as with rape under s. 1, so the same problems exist in establishing consent. As with rape, it will depend on whether Una still maintained the capacity to consent at the time of the act (s. 75 (2C)). Sexual assault (s. 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) The actus reus and the mens rea are outlined above in Vince re Tina Applying the actus reus and mens rea to the facts: In having sexual intercourse with Una, Will has clearly intended to touch her in a sexual manner. Again, consent is the arguable factor as discussed above. There must be a lack of reasonable belief in consent for Will to be guilty.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Actus reus refers to a criminal act that occurs or happens as a result of voluntary bodily movement (Dressler, 2015). In other words, it is a physical activity that harms an individual, or damage properties. Every physical activity such as murder to the destruction of public properties qualifies to be an actus reus. It consists of all the elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the offender. Apparently, it may consist of conduct, the state of affairs, result, or an omission.
(1) A man (A) confers an offense if-(a) he purposefully infiltrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis (b) B does not agree to the penetration, and (C) A does not reasonably trust that B assents
The crime of indecent assault and battery occurs when an attacker, has non-consensual physical contact with a person in a sexual manner. This could be any unwarranted physical contact to a person’s private body. This assault is punishable to up to five years in prison.
Sexual abuse includes any sexual act in which one person has not agreed to it. A woman can be sexually abused by means of, but not limited to force, coercion, blackmail, threat, or embarrassment. Sexual abuse may occur when a woman is forced to perform, watch, or in any other way engage in sexual acts. This includes but is not limited to vaginal, anal and oral sex, fondling, touching, disrespect of privacy, such as showering, being forced to watch pornography or view pornographic pictures, being forced into sexual poses, or being verbally abused in a sexual manner (Morris and Biehl 36, Haley 14).
The offender urinated on his victim during the sexual assault which instigates
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
SEXUAL ABUSE: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact without consent, e.g., marital rape, forcing sex after physical beating, attacks on sexual parts of the body or treating another in a sexually demeaning manner.
What is sexual assault? Sexual assault is, “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape” (Sexual Assault).
...ire to be emotionally or physically close with another person, and the relationship does not have to be sexual for the victim to feel uncomfortable. It is important for the victims to give themselves time to become more comfortable with sexual intimacy. They may feel comfortable a week after the assault, or they may be uncomfortable a year later.
Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability.
A question among researchers is what type of force is required to constitute sexual assault. Does non-physical sexual coercion count as sexual assault? Russell (1982) found that women described sexual coercion as different than sexual assault, showing that there is a major distinction in their minds of these types of sexual violence. Thus, her research team distinguished between use of physical force and non-physical coercion, even to the point of determining which actions constitute physical force. Their criteria for use of force included “such acts as pushing, pinning, and being held down by a husband’s weight so that the woman couldn’t move,” (p. 48). In chapter five of their seminal work License to Rape (1985), Finkellhor & Yllo present
Sexual assault is a term that is used interchangeably with the word rape. The decision on whether or not to use the term rape or sexual assault is made by a state’s jurisdiction. Sexual assault is more readily used in an attempt to be more gender neutral (National Victim Center). Sexual assault can be most easily described as forced or unconsentual sexual intercourse. The individual that is performing these acts on the victim may either be a stranger or an acquaintance. In 1994, 64.2 percent of all rapes were committed by someone the offender had previously known (Ringel, 1997). Regardless, this type of crime can have extreme effects on the victim.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Rape is considered to be one element in the “Big Six” of the most common sex-related crimes. It is defined as the unlawful act of sexual activity forced upon a person who did not or was unable to give willing to give consent. There are four main types of a rapist that center around their modus operandi: Power Reassurance, Anger Retaliation, Power Assertive, and Sadistic. The goals of a Power Reassurance rapist are to gain a validation of their status and to validate their sexual adequacy. They view the act as a reassurance of a mutual relationship between them and the victim, and they usually force the victim into acting out their sexual fantasies. This could be done by demanding that the victim talks dirty or by asking reassuring questions