s.5

Where an accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.

An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had made material errors of law in holding that exceptional circumstances were required before deportation could be ordered for a failed asylum seeker who had pleaded guilty to two sexual offences and had been sentenced to a two-year conditional discharge with a recommendation for deportation.

It was not for the courts to assess the reasons behind the prosecution’s decision to charge an individual under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.8 rather than s.5 or s.9 and, in the circumstances, a sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed on the individual was not manifestly excessive.

The court considered and gave guidance on the principles applicable to the new mandatory sentencing provisions for the protection of the public from dangerous offenders contained in Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.224 to s.229 and the factors that judges should take into account when deciding whether one of the new sentences must be imposed.

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.

It was impermissible for the Crown to prosecute a charge of indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) in circumstances where the conduct upon which that charge was based was only an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 in respect of which no prosecution could be commenced under s.6(1) of the Act by virtue of s.37(2) of, and Sch.2 to, that Act.