K, Crown Prosecution Service v [2000] EWCA Crim 57 (31st October, 2000)

K, Crown Prosecution Service v [2000] EWCA Crim 57 (31st October, 2000)

Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 excludes by necessary implication any defence of genuine belief that the complainant was over 16 to a charge of indecent assault on a girl under 16. The prosecution does not have to prove the absence of such a belief. The statutory wording and legislative history demonstrate Parliament's intention to create an offence of strict liability in this context.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Crim 57
Parties
Defendant: K; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's ruling reversed
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Strict Liability, Mens Rea, Sexual Offences, Mistake of Fact, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Strict Liability Mens Rea Sexual Offences Mistake of Fact European Convention on Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 require the prosecution to prove the absence of a genuine belief by the defendant that the complainant was 16 or over?
  2. 2 Is the offence under section 14 one of strict liability, excluding a defence of honest belief as to age?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 excludes by necessary implication any defence of genuine belief that the complainant was over 16 to a charge of indecent assault on a girl under 16. The prosecution does not have to prove the absence of such a belief. The statutory wording and legislative history demonstrate Parliament's intention to create an offence of strict liability in this context.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's ruling reversed

Orders

  • The prosecution is not required to prove the absence of a genuine belief by the defendant that the complainant was 16 or over.