Consent In Criminal Law Essay

This essay will look at the issue of consent with regard to the Sexual Offences Act (SOA) 2003. Prior to the SOA, the issue of consent was governed by case law, but was considered unsatisfactory by the home office. This prompted various consultations and white papers, namely Setting the Boundaries, headed by then Home Secretary Jack Straw, with the view to modernise and strengthen uk law, whilst protecting the victims of sexual offences. A highlighted and most widely accepted proposal from Setting the Boundaries, was the introduction of the statutory definition of consent, calling that consent becoming essential in determining the guilt of an offender, therefore it is rudimentary to be defined in judicial law.

Consent is therefore written

The offence has potential to be so complex, that a case for rape could be the intended charge in order to protect the victim and exercise s74 of consent against her will. In the case of R v Dica (2004), it was confirmed that the most appropriate ground for conviction of a reckless transmission of a virus though intercourse, would be that of s20 OAPA, inflicting grievous bodily harm. In his summing of the case, Chief Justice Judge found that consent to sexual intercourse was sought and the case for rape was invalid, the victim consented to the act of

This rings true in the case of R v Konzani (2005), whereby Konzani was convicted under s20 for GBH whilst inflicting HIV on three women after having unprotected sex. Judge Lord Chief Justice presented that “whilst the defendant concealed his HIV status, it was almost inevitable that the complainants were deceived. With consent not being properly informed, the complainant cannot give informed consent to something which she is ignorant”. He goes on to say that “silence in these circumstances is