Sexual Offences in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Hodgson
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 26 Sep 1967

    Where the offence or offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence. Where it appears from the nature of the offences or from the Defendant's history that he is a person of unstable character likely to commit such offences in the future, and 3. Where if the offences are committed the consequences to others may be specially injurious, as in the case of sexual offences or crimes of violence.

  • R v Olugboja
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 17 Jun 1981

    We do not think that the issue of consent should be left to a jury without some further direction. What this should be will depend on the circumstances of each case. In the majority of cases, where the allegation is that the intercourse was had by force or the fear of force, such a direction coupled with specific references to and comments on the evidence relevant to the absence of real consent will clearly suffice.

  • R v Boardman
    • House of Lords
    • 13 Nov 1974

    The test must be—is the evidence capable of tending to persuade a reasonable jury of the accused's guilt on some ground other than his bad character and disposition to commit the sort of crime with which he is charged? The similarity would have to be so unique or striking that common sense makes it inexplicable on the basis of coincidence.

  • R v C (P)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 26 Nov 2008

    Returning to the exercise of the court's discretion, or more accurately, its judgment, whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection should be passed when the necessary criteria are established, the court is entitled to and should have in mind all the alternative and cumulative methods of providing the necessary public protection against the risk posed by the individual offender.

  • R v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)
    • House of Lords
    • 18 Jun 2008

    In many cases, there will be no reason to take any official action at all. But the message of sections 9 and 13 is that any sort of sexual activity with a child under 16 is an offence, unless in the case of a child who has reached 13 the perpetrator reasonably believed that the child was aged 16 or over. There are many good policy reasons for the law to convey that message, not only to adults but also to the children themselves.

  • DPP v P
    • House of Lords
    • 27 Jun 1991

    From all that was said by the House in Reg. v. Boardman I would deduce the essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force in support of the allegation that an accused person committed a crime is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, notwithstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused in tending to show that he was guilty of another crime.

  • R v K
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Jul 2001

    By contrast, the terms of sections 5 and 6 of the 1956 Act namely offences of having sexual intercourse with girls under 13 (section 5) and with girls under 16 (section 6) are inconsistent with the application of the presumption. The "young man's defence" under section 6(3) makes clear that it is not available to anybody else. The linked provision in section 5, dealing with intercourse with younger girls, must therefore also impose absolute liability.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT