Sections 3 and 4 Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990

detective

Aggravated sexual assault.

3.—(1) In this Act “aggravated sexual assault” means a sexual assault that involves serious violence or the threat of serious violence or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted.

No definition in this act for serious violence; does anybody here know of any case law for same?

Rape under section 4 .

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

Can an object be a part of the offender's body?

If somebody out there has any great knowledge in this area I could PM them with the scenario that's not suited for the public thread.

Bosco boy

Yes is the answer IMO

crystalmice

As to the first question, I assume the definition of serious violence for regualr assault cases would apply and so the wealth of case law on that point would be useful.

For the second point, yes 'object' absolutley includes body parts, part of the purpose of rape under section 4 is to cover oral and other rape.

detective

crystalmice wrote: »

As to the first question, I assume the definition of serious violence for regualr assault cases would apply and so the wealth of case law on that point would be useful.

For the second point, yes 'object' absolutley includes body parts, part of the purpose of rape under section 4 is to cover oral and other rape.

On your first point there is no mention of serious violence in assault legislation, only serious harm which I would think is rather different.

On you second point I would love if you could refer me to some proof of sorts?

MagicSean

I think the proof is in the definition. The distinction between an object held and an object manipulated. To me the latter would refer to oral or digital rape. I've never actually heard of a case involving it though.

Hippo

According to Charleton et al in Criminal Law in discussing Section 4 Rape, "a finger is part of the hand, so cannot be held or manipulated" (at p652). In these terms, the 'object' referred to in the Act is an external item, and not part of the body. The legendary Ciaran Patton is specific in his lectures that digital penetration, for instance, could not constitute a S4 Rape.

'Serious Violence' is not defined, but would probably involve the victim being threatened with serious harm (e.g. at knifepoint or gunpoint, or otherwise being put in fear for their life) or actually suffering what could be called assault causing serious harm in the course of the sexual assault. Basically a matter for the jury.

MagicSean

But is there any case law to support their definition of an object?

Hippo

k_mac wrote: »

But is there any case law to support their definition of an object?

Not to my knowledge. Given that the first part of the section covers oral and anal rape, it's reasonable to assume that 'object held or manipulated' refers to a non-corporeal item, and in any case I'll certainly bow to their superior knowledge!