Question 1
The charge being considered in this circumstance is rape under s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA.) (CLCA) The fault element being pursued is intention to have sex with the knowledge of non-consent (KNC) and reckless indifference as to the possibility of non-consent in the alternative. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Conduct Elements
Sexual Intercourse
Ramsey performed sexual intercourse with C, as defined in section 5 of the CLCA. The facts plainly states sex occurred, therefore there is no dispute in this area.
Voluntariness
As established in the case of Ryan v R, the act must be willed with the mind be in control of the body. Falconer confirms that the prosecution has an evidentiary …show more content…
This knowledge is tested subjectively as established in the case of R v Brown. The defence may contend that due to Ramsey’s supposed attentive listening and C’s ‘smile’ after being asked about sex, that Ramsey had knowledge of consent. C also said ‘it is go time’ before taking Ramsey off to a private area. However the phrase ‘It is go time,’ is open-ended and doesn’t imply the desire to engage in sexual intercourse. Even after Ramsey’s persistence in asking, there were no vocal cues giving an affirmative response to requests for sex and C testified she said ‘no.’ Furthermore C told Ramsey that C did not want sex before the two of them found a private space. Ramsey would have known before proceeding with the act, that consent was …show more content…
The prosecution must disprove that the conduct was reasonably proportionate BRD. The prosecution may argue on the facts that a firm punch in the face is not proportionate to a verbal threat of force. CCTV footage displayed an exchange of conversation with no violent bodily interaction before the punch. However a court “must not weigh too precisely the exact amount of defensive action.” Morgan v Colman confirms that one cannot calculate ‘on a knife edge the exact measure of legitimate defensive action.’ This judgement also stated that the circumstances of defence must be ‘as the person claiming to have acted in self-defence genuinely believed them to be.’ It is beside the point whether the punch can be ‘weighed equally’ against V’s threats or lack thereof. Ramsey subjectively believed there was a major threat of harm from V’s constant threats and V pulling what looked like a knife, out of a pocket. This genuine belief of harm confirms that the punch was reasonably proportionate to the
The charge being considered in this circumstance is rape under s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA.) (CLCA) The fault element being pursued is intention to have sex with the knowledge of non-consent (KNC) and reckless indifference as to the possibility of non-consent in the alternative. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Conduct Elements
Sexual Intercourse
Ramsey performed sexual intercourse with C, as defined in section 5 of the CLCA. The facts plainly states sex occurred, therefore there is no dispute in this area.
Voluntariness
As established in the case of Ryan v R, the act must be willed with the mind be in control of the body. Falconer confirms that the prosecution has an evidentiary …show more content…
This knowledge is tested subjectively as established in the case of R v Brown. The defence may contend that due to Ramsey’s supposed attentive listening and C’s ‘smile’ after being asked about sex, that Ramsey had knowledge of consent. C also said ‘it is go time’ before taking Ramsey off to a private area. However the phrase ‘It is go time,’ is open-ended and doesn’t imply the desire to engage in sexual intercourse. Even after Ramsey’s persistence in asking, there were no vocal cues giving an affirmative response to requests for sex and C testified she said ‘no.’ Furthermore C told Ramsey that C did not want sex before the two of them found a private space. Ramsey would have known before proceeding with the act, that consent was …show more content…
The prosecution must disprove that the conduct was reasonably proportionate BRD. The prosecution may argue on the facts that a firm punch in the face is not proportionate to a verbal threat of force. CCTV footage displayed an exchange of conversation with no violent bodily interaction before the punch. However a court “must not weigh too precisely the exact amount of defensive action.” Morgan v Colman confirms that one cannot calculate ‘on a knife edge the exact measure of legitimate defensive action.’ This judgement also stated that the circumstances of defence must be ‘as the person claiming to have acted in self-defence genuinely believed them to be.’ It is beside the point whether the punch can be ‘weighed equally’ against V’s threats or lack thereof. Ramsey subjectively believed there was a major threat of harm from V’s constant threats and V pulling what looked like a knife, out of a pocket. This genuine belief of harm confirms that the punch was reasonably proportionate to the