Evaluate whether the issue of consent has satisfactorily been dealt with by the sexual offences act 2003, making suggestions for reform where appropriate.

DO NOT DISCUSS CONSENT AS IT RELATES TO OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

PLEASE INCLUDE CASES TO EXPLAIN THE QUESTION

I HAVE ATTACHED SKELETON/ FRAMEWORK TO BE FOLLOWED BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY BETTER IDEA I WOULD LOVE TO FOLLOW AS WELL. PLEASE INCLUDE REFORM IF CAN, IF CANNOT THEN IT IS OKAY... I AM OKAY..

Evaluate whether the issue of consent has satisfactorily been dealt with by the sexual offences act 2003, making suggestions for reform where appropriate. DO NOT discuss consent as it relates to offences against the person. Introduction -discuss what is the objective of SOA being introduced -clear instead of judicial explanation -section 74 = freedom + capacity is vague -need clarity and certainty. Stuff about freedom, what u mean and it is hard to say. -define what is consent under S.74 SOA and how SOA changed the definition. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/what is_consent v2.p df https://thestudentlawyer.com/2020/06/03/the-sexual-offences-act-2003-the-issue-of- consent/ - directly address the code the question. - reform at the end they apply their common sense. If we keep relying on the jury it will laymen. - proposal of reform (proper definitive of consent) Body discuss and state the importance of having consent in a sexual activity. - presumption of on how they hate each other. Lining to the statues. Got through the section and definite consent. -explore how the definition of consent applies in terms of case laws. For example, in the case of R v Kirk, the courts confirmed that under the SOA 2003, mere submission is still not a consent. Discuss this case with the judges view point and how they came to conclude that mere submission is not consent. Include the names of the judges and their reasoning for this case. - discuss on the fact that now the question the courts look into is whether the consent is genuine following section 74 SOA, for example in the case of R v Larter and R v Malone. -looking at section 74 for the purposes of consent, the SOA do not define what is lack of capacity but the complainant may show that they lack capacity by suffering from mental disorder, young or intoxicated by alcohol or drugs under the case of R V C. -look at whether a drunken consent is still a consent. use the case of R v Dougal and explore the issues in this case to determine whether the drunken consent can be a consent. Also look at the case of R v Bree - section 75 -what about situation where the defendant has lied about their gender which can undermine the existence of consent. You can look at this under the case of R v McNally and how the courts determined the issue of whether there is consent of is it compromised. - nature purpose of act /. S.76Conclusion -discuss the possible criticism that has raised from the definition of consent. Look into the fact that the Home Office (2006) addressed that the SOA 2003 definition of consent was not clear among the public and lawyers in general. Look at what Finch and Munro have stated about the complainant's freedom and capacity to consent to sex. - what is the final say. relate to the question, -the SOA has reversed the burden of proof in relation to the issue of consent in certain circumstances but the problem about whether the victim has consented or not has remained. -Look at different academic views from the pages I have clicked for you D. Dripps opinion Temkin and Ashworth Steven Box in "Power, Crime and Mystification " Nevertheless, if defendant takes advantage of victim whilst he or she is in this condition, this could still be rape as demonstrated in the pre-2003 Act case of Malone (1998). A 16-year- old girl, victim, got drunk to the extent that she was unable to walk and had to be driven home. Her neighbor, defendant, was asked assist in carrying her home after which her friends undressed her and put her to sleep. defendant decided to stay with victim, presumably to make sure she did not choke and vomit. However, defendant, claimed that he then climbed on top of her and had intercourse before she could kick him off. Defendant was convicted of rape and appealed on the ground that, he did not have intercourse with her on the basis of fraud or reception and hence no protest on behalf on victim meant consent was present. The Court of Appeal (COA) disagreed and dismissed the appeal. The leading case is Bree (2007) where defendant is alleged to have raped victim whilst victim was voluntarily intoxicated. The Court of Appeal nullified defendant's rape conviction because the jury had not been adequately directed on the issue of victim's consent. The facts directed that victim, although very drunk, had become intoxicated voluntarily and retained the capacity to consent. Consequently, neither section 75(2)(d) not 75(2)(f) could be used as a pragmatic approach. The case therefore hinged on whether the Crown had proved that was not consenting at the time of the alleged rape, an issue which could not be proven given the inadequacy of the trial judge's directions, and therefore the conviction was unsafe. In Bree (2007), Sir Igor Judge aforementioned, "a drunken consent is still consent. Where victim has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape"