header-logo header-logo

18 January 2007 / Kjersti Lehmann
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Rape date

Timing should not let rapists off the hook argues
Kjersti Lehmann

in brief

 No transitional provisions were put in place after SOA 2003 came into force and previous Acts of Parliament were repealed. As a result it is, at present, not possible to convict a person for sexual offences if it cannot be proved whether the offence was committed before, on or after 1 May 2004. 

 A solution to this unsatisfactory situation is given in VCRA, s 55. When implemented, s 55 will provide that in circumstances in which it is not possible to prove the date of the offence, and the offence may straddle the two legislative regimes, then it may be presumed that it was committed pre-May 2004.

 

 

On 1 May 2004 the central provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) were brought into force. The Sexual Offences Act of 1956 (SOA 1956) was repealed, meaning that a sexual offence committed on or after 1 May 2004 will be an offence under SOA 2003. Any offence that took place before this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll