Sexual Offences

R v Ennever

need not penetration mere contact enough; but if mouth closed: not sexual violation but indecent assault

R v A

woman can be convicted if her genitalia is penetrated by penis w/ MR

R v Adams

consent at time of sexual act

R v Annas

consent voluntary & deliberate

R v Brewer

submission does not amount to consent

W v R

being threatened means consent cannot be given

Henry v R

previous consent cannot amount to future consent

R v Clarke, R v Can

whether reasonable person in accused’s shoes thought there was consent

R v S

reasonable belief in consent is separate to whether consent in fact, but see R v Nixon s 128A (3)

Christian v R

need not +ve consent but lack of protest is not consent, also contextual inquiry

R v Herbert

fear might negate actual consent, but reasonable belief still relevant

R v Nixon

cannot be reasonable belief if asleep

R v Isherwood

evidence that alcohol drug affects mind does not negate consent, q of degree

R v Kim

need not evidence of extent of intoxication

Howard

if cannot comprehend what the activity was, the sexual character, or right to refuse

R v Papadimitropolous

mistake as to person not status/personal attribute

R v Richardson

does not extend to qualifications/attributes

R v Williams

mistake as to nature of act not effect of it

R v Devonald

diff quality of act vitiates consent

R v Lee

triggers duty to disclose, unless take precautions (condom)

Filitonga v R

potentially GBH however medical advances open to jury to find not GBH

R v Mwai

may be criminal nuisance under s 145 for breach of s 156, but law not certain. KSB v ACC extended the duty only in civil cases

R v Dunn

judged in light of time/place/circumstance

Peters v Police

contemporary norms may be relevant

R v Aylwin

need not intend indecent element just act