Unlawful Sexual Intercourse: Compatibility with Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2005.69.4.292 |
| Published date | 01 August 2005 |
| Date | 01 August 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
payments into his own bank account and into that of his creditor. It
presented an obvious case of theft of the credit balance which
‘belonged’ to the charity. In such a scenario it was entirely irrelevant
whether payments were initiated by means of either telegraphic
transfer or cheque.
The above principles were, thus, legitimately applied in Holmes to
determine that the application be dismissed. The offence of obtaining a
money transfer by deception, pursuant to s. 15A of the Theft Act 1968
requires, in addition to the making of a credit to a bank account, that a
debit has been made to an account, and, further, that the credit resulted
from the debit or vice versa. It is no longer a prerequisite to the offence
to identify which particular account has been debited as the concomi-
tant to the credit, provided there was a debiting of an account and the
debit was causally connected with the credit. Although in the instant
case there was no specific evidence that any debit was in fact made to a
particular account, the court was entitled to take judicial notice of the
invariable banking and accountancy practice whereby a money transfer
could not be made by a bank without an account being debited with the
amount of that transfer, and the debit and credit would have been
causally connected. Thus, assuming there was a debit, although the
arrest warrant did not specify the details of the relevant account, that
was not essential.
Alan Reed
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse: Compatibility with Articles
6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
E vDPP [2005] EWHC 147
In December 2002, the appellant, when aged 15 years, engaged in
consensual sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. He was charged
with unlawful sexual intercourse contrary to s. 6(1) of the Sexual
Offences Act 1956. At his trial in August 2003 he admitted the sexual
intercourse, but pleaded not guilty. On appeal by way of case stated the
question was whether the appellant’s conviction was compatible with
Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the
grounds that s. 6 of the 1956 Act discriminates on the grounds of
gender.
The appellant's submission was that the offence of unlawful sexual
intercourse, when concerning two consenting people both under the
age of 16 years, was discriminatory in that it automatically treated one of
the parties, the female, as the victim and the other party, the male, as the
offender. Both parties consented, yet only the male could be convicted
under the section. It was submitted that a fair trial was not possible
because the offence charged inherently discriminated and undermined
the right to legal protection.
The Journal of Criminal Law
292
To continue reading
Request your trial