HELP, MARKING AN EXAM QUESTION, RAPE, CRIMINAL LAW Forum

[tintex93]

Hi, basically i just attempted a problem question on rape,i was wondering if anyone could tell me what i did wrong and what i could do to improve it, i would really appreciate it as my teacher has gone on holiday. I have done most of the hard part by answering the question, i will also make it simpler by putting it in bullet points ... thanks in advance


Steven is a homosexual and is obsessed with Paul. He invites him for a drink one evening at a wine bar violent. After the drink Paul allows Steven to come back to his house for a coffee. By midnight Paul is very tired and asks Steven to leave but he refuses and starts to become very violent. He hits Paul across the face and then forces him to have anal intercourse. Paul screams out with pain and when a neighbour arrives, having heard the noise, Steven runs off. He later claims to friends that Paul obviously fancied him and meant yes when he said no. Discuss the criminal liability of Steven

.Steven is more likely to be held liable for rape.
.The defintion of rape has since developed since the sexual offence act (1976) to sexual offence act (2003).
The idea that intercourse needed to be commited in order to be held liable for rape has now changed from SOA 1956 to SOA 2003 to mean penetration by the penis into the anal,vagina or mouth.
Secondly the mens rea in SOA 1956 was recklessness as to consent which as also been changed in SOA 2003 to mean that the defendant reasonably belived that the defendant belived there was no consent
SOA 2003 also stated that rape can only be committed by a man, and the victim may be a man or woman
Rape is defined in (S.1(1) SOA 2003) has a penetration by a man into another man or woman's anal, mouth or vagina without consent.And the defendant reasonably believed it was without consent.
The mens rea and actus reus for rape must be proven before steven can be held liable.
The actus reus for rape is the penetration by motuh, anal or vagina without consent of Paul.
Mens rea is if Steven had reasonably believed there was no consesnt by Paul.
Steven forced Paul to have anal intercourse, this is enoigh to satisfy that there has been pentetration with paul, as steven would have needed to insert his penis
As long as there has been a penetration, it doesn't matter that there has been no ejuculation
In the past force had to be used in order for there to be liablity for raep.However this is no longer the case.
Secondly Paul must not have consented. s.74 of the SOA 2003 defines consent.
Consent is the person has agreed, by choice and has the freedom or capicity to make that choice.
The only thing Paul has consented to is Steven coming over to his house, however he got tired and asked Paul to leave.Paul hasn't agreed to any aqnal intercourse.Steven then uses violence against Paul causing Paul to have no freedom or capcity to make a free choice.
If Paul has been hit over the head, he is likely to be scared
to run as steven may be able to catch him. Also if oaul has been hit across the face, he will be weak and unconcious and scared therefore he has no freedom or capcity to make that choice.
As a result the actus reus for rape has been established.
In order for steven to be held liable for rape, the mens rea must also be proven.This is steven reasonably believing that Paul hadn't consented.
Reasonably is defined by s.1.2 SOA 2003 as whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (the defendant) has taken to ascertain (whether the victim) consents
This can be divided into two questions
did the defendant believe the victim was consenting ?
was that beief reasonable ?
Steven could have believed that paul was consenting as paul had invited him over to his house.Also he claims to his friends that obviously paul fancied him and that hen he said no he really meant yes.
However Paul had asked him to leave which is enough to show that oaul did not want him in his house,Steven refused to leave which is unreasonable because any average person when asked to leave would have left.
Also Steven ran off when a neighbour arrived.If he believed that the defendant was conseting there would have been no reason for him to run.Paul also did scream which shows his lack of consent
Force has been used and steven may be prosecuted under s.75 SOA 2003
Under S.75 SOA 2003 as long as the defendant hadn't consented and Steven had the necessary mens rea, he can be held liable.
Steven had the necessary mens rea where violence or threat was used. Paul hadn't consented has he did ask Steven to leave but steven used voilence and hit Paul over the head.
The minmum sentence steven can get is life imprisonment.The minimum is five years and increases where the offence has aggravated features

[SilverE2]

...were you born in 1993?

[SilverE2]

Oh, you're British.

[TTTLS]

The fact that I think this looks fun to analyze is a sure sign that I've been reading too much today. I guess it's time to go out for a drink.

Steven is a homosexual and is obsessed with Paul. He invites him for a drink one evening at a wine bar violent.

LOLwut?

[ilovesf]

Why did I just read all of that? I hope you don't make that many typos on your actual exam, or a practice test that you bring to your prof.
Also, just to be helpful, I think it is a good idea to list possible defenses and how the rapist would argue it.

[shock259]

Check out the law libary (note spelling)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... BF4g#t=21s

[tintex93]

hey guys, yes am British and i know i made so much typo, i tried to type really fast. Can you help me how i can improve my marks please

[tintex93]

yes i was born in 1993

[geoduck]

How can anyone stand going to law school before they're old enough to drink?

[SilverE2]

How can anyone stand going to law school before they're old enough to drink?

He's in England.

I think the drinking age there is 11.

[geoduck]

Oh *in* England. I thought he was just English. So this is LLB work?