header-logo header-logo

Rape date

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

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 No transitional provisions were put in place after SOA 2003 came into force and previous Acts of Parliament were repealed.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 The Sexual Offences Act of 1956 (SOA 1956) was repealed, meaning that a sexual offence committed on or after 1 May 2004 will be an offence under SOA 2003.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

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Employment boutique strengthens litigation bench with partner hire

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Partner appointed to dispute resolution team

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Employment law offering in Guernsey expands with new hire

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
back-to-top-scroll