A suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment was increased by lifting the suspended element and imposing an immediate two-year custodial sentence, for an offender who had pleaded guilty to ten counts of historic sexual abuse. The court noted that this was an exceptional case, in which the offender had volunteered the fact of a second victim, and said it should not be treated as a precedent.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES APPROPRIATENESS OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 BY PENETRATION INDECENT ASSAULT s.14(1) s.6 SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 SUSPENDED SENTENCES UNDUE LENIENCY
An individual had been incorrectly convicted of a historic offence of rape against a family member because, at the relevant time, anal penetration did not constitute that offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1. It was appropriate to substitute an alternative conviction for indecent assault, as the facts fell within the scope of s.14(1) of the 1956 Act, and the test set out in R. v Graham (Hemamali Krishna) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302 was satisfied.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ALTERNATIVE CHARGES CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RAPE s.14 s.14(1) s.2 s.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 TOTALITY OF SENTENCE YOUNG OFFENDERS
Although cross-examination which had invited impermissible speculation by the defendant should not have been allowed, that was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conviction for rape, buggery and indecent assault was unsafe, there being no other basis on which to undermine the jury’s acceptance of the significant DNA evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION FOR HISTORIC SEXUAL ASSAULT BASED ON DNA EVIDENCE BUGGERY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DNA EVIDENCE EFFECT ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT INVITING IMPERMISSIBLE SPECULATION INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE s.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.12(1) SUMMING UP
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.
AGE AVAILABILITY OF DEFENCE OF HONEST BELIEF BELIEF AS TO AGE OF COMPLAINANT BUGGERY CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL LIABILITY DEFENCES HONEST BELIEF HONEST BELIEF VICTIM OVER 16 YEARS OLD IMPOSITION OF STRICT LIABILITY INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT MENS REA MENTAL ELEMENT s.1 s.10 S.12 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14 s.14(1) s.14(2) s.14(4) S.143(1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 S.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 s.5 S.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.6 S.6 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.6(3) s.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2000 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.12 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.