New Zealand Law/Criminal/Sex Crimes
Appearance
Definitions
[edit | edit source]Sexual Violation
[edit | edit source]- Male rapes female; or
- Unlawful sexual connection with another.
Sexual Connection
[edit | edit source]- (a) penetration of the genitalia or anus by:
- (i) any part of the body; or
- (ii) any object,
- other than for bona fide medial purposes;
- (b) connection btwn the mouth and genitalia for any other purpose
- (c) continuation of these acts.
Offences
[edit | edit source]1. Male rapes female
[edit | edit source]Sexual connection by a man without consent or without believing on reasonable grounds that a woman consents.
2. Unlawful sexual connection
[edit | edit source]Sexual connection without consent or without believing on reasonable grounds that a person consents.
3. Inducing sexual connection by coercion
[edit | edit source]Sexual connection with another knowing that person has been induced to consent by a express or implied threat:
- (a) of imprisonment offence;
- (b) of accusation (true of false) of misconduct by any person (living or dead) that will seriously damage the reputation of that person;
- (c) to make improper use of any power or authority arising out of employment or commercial relationship.
4. Incest
[edit | edit source]Sexual intercourse between:
- (a) parent and child;
- (b) brother and sister;
- (c) grandparent and grandchild.
Cases
[edit | edit source]R v Daniels
[edit | edit source]- Facts
- Morgan invited buddies to have sex with wife. Rape requires knowledge or recklessness re consent.
- Held HL
- Honest belief need not be reasonable.
- Reasonableness is evidence of whether belief really held.
- Defendants could not have reasonably believed.
(Note: Rape must now be based on honest and reasonable belief.)
R v Pauga
[edit | edit source]- Facts
- P charged with rape.
- The only evidence against the defendant was a videotaped interview, in which he said the victim wanted to have sex with him because she was scared he would beat her up.
- Defendant argued that lack of consent could not be proved from interview alone – there must be some evidence from the complainant.
- Held
- No rule of law that conviction cannot be sustained from accused’s confession alone.
- A reasonable jury, properly directed could be allowed to safely come to a conclusion.
- Jury should be advised:
- - video is only evidence
- - evidence comes solely from defendant
- - evidence not given under oath or subject to cross-exam
- - no corroboration
- - highly unusual for prosecution case to rely on confession alone
- - must be sure crime committed ie. essential elements established
- - must consider evidence anxiously and carefully
- - could be other reasons for admission, eg. fantasy, attention
- - jury must be sure of guilt.