Sexual Assault in UK Law

The judge is entitled to make comments as to the way evidence is to be approached particularly in areas where there is a danger of a jury coming to an unjustified conclusion without an appropriate warning. It is no part of the judge's task to put before the jury Dr Mason's learning without her having been called as a witness.

The issues addressed in these cases were the result of two things: the increase in the maximum penalty for indecent assault from two years' imprisonment to 10, enacted by section 3(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1985; and the practice of prosecutors to lay charges under section 14 when the time for doing so under section 6 had expired. In R v Hinton (1994) 16 Cr App R(S) 523 it did so because the section 6 time limit had expired.

The Defendant had penetrated a child's vagina with his finger when drunk. We are wholly satisfied that there is no basis for construing the new Sexual Offences Act as having altered the law so as to make voluntary intoxication available as a defence to the allegation that the defendant intentionally touched the complainant.

(a) Sentence will be imposed at the date of the sentencing hearing, on the basis of the legislative provisions then current, and by measured reference to any definitive sentencing guidelines relevant to the situation revealed by the established facts.

A psychiatric report was prepared on NBV by Dr Tony Davies on behalf of the Defendant. He met with NBV on 4 th June 2013 for approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes. His report does not differ substantially from that of Professor Maden. He concluded that at the point in time when he assessed NBV she did not reach the threshold for a current diagnosis of a Depressive Disorder/Episode or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

If an employer knows that acts being done by employees during their employment may cause physical or mental harm to a particular fellow employee and he does nothing to supervise or prevent such acts, when it is in his power to do so, it is clearly arguable that he may be in breach of his duty to that employee. It seems to me that he may also be in breach of that duty if he can foresee that such acts may happen and if they do, that physical or mental harm may be caused to an individual.

Secondly, through the combined effects of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd and departing from Stubbings v Webb, a substantially greater number of allegations (not all of which will be true) are now likely to be made many years after the abuse complained of. Whether or not it will be possible for defendants to investigate these sufficiently for there to be a reasonable prospect of a fair trial will depend upon a number of factors, not least when the complaint was first made and with what effect.