Posted on December 12, 2008 by norman baird
“What are the relevant characteristics of the accused to which the jury should have regard in considering the second objective test in duress. This question has given rise to considerable difficulty in recent cases. It seems clear that age and sex are, and physical health or disability may be, relevant characteristics. But beyond that it is not altogether easy to determine from the authorities what others may be relevant.”
To read the case click here
—
—
Filed under: Defences, Duress, Sexual offences | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 5, 2008 by norman baird
“This appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Maidstone of an offence of sexual assault contrary to section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The issue to which his conviction gives rise is whether he can or cannot be heard to say that by reason of voluntary intoxication he did not have the necessary state of mind to commit the offence.”
To read the case click here
—
—
Filed under: Defences, Sexual offences | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 4, 2008 by norman baird
“The essential problem in this case is the relevance to the conviction, if any, of section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the conclusive presumptions which it provides in relation to consent in sexual cases. If none, section 74 and section 75, with its evidential presumptions, arise for consideration.”
To read this report click here
—
—
Filed under: Case link, Sexual offences | Leave a comment »
