s.1

The court gave guidance regarding the assessment of a complainant’s mental capacity in a criminal trial when the alleged offences involved proof of a lack of consent.

The defendant’s convictions for raping his partner were safe where there was expert evidence that his mental illness had not affected his ability to understand whether his partner had consented. Even if that were wrong, delusional beliefs that a victim was consenting could not render reasonable a belief that the victim was consenting when they were not.

Where a defendant had taken indecent photographs of a 17-year-old girl following intercourse on a “one night stand”, the judge had been correct to reject an argument that the situation came within the terms of the defence set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1A.

Arrangements to provide defence lawyers with the relevant material for the sole purpose of discharging their professional responsibilities to their client, and the acceptance by them of access to such material for that purpose, could not, in any circumstances, be regarded as criminal. Where, in the course of proceedings concerning the making and possession of indecent photographs of a child, the trial judge had ordered the prosecution to make copies of the images for his use, with the defence to be shown an identical copy, and the prosecution had given notice that it would not comply with that order, the proceedings had rightly been stayed as an abuse of process.

If, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape.

A community sentence was not unduly lenient where the offender had pleaded of guilty to an offence of assault by penetration contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.2(1) on the basis that he was mistaken as to the identity of the victim, believing her to be somebody else, who would have consented to his advances.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.10 .

On a charge of buggery with a male under the age of 16 pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.12 , an appellant was entitled to plead in defence that he honestly believed the complainant to be over the age of 16. The s.12 offence was not a strict liability offence.