Concerns in the Law of Sexual Offences and Reforms
The Sexual Offences Act of 2003 was enacted by the U.K parliament to deal with sexual offences. The Act replaced the old sexual offences laws which had failed to address the arising issues in sexual violence. The offences covered by the Act include penetrative assault, sex with a corpse, exposure of minors to sexual content, non-consensual voyeurism, and rape. The Act has a main legislation that provides guidelines on child sexual abuse and also sets guidelines for sexual offences such as rape.
It is not easy to report sexual crimes. Most of the victims tend to remain quiet and silently suffer the trauma. Sexual offences degrade the profile and reputation of the communities involved. Fighting sexual crimes has become one of the top priorities for the government. Sexual offenders still live within these communities thereby posing threat to vulnerable people.
Victims of sexual violence are subjected to a tremendous amount of stress which degrades their self-value and also lowers their self-esteem. Some victims are however unaware of the provisions of the law on sexual offences. As a result, many cases go unreported leading to denial of justice to the victims. Another major concern is the protection of women, children and the vulnerable people in the society against sexual assaults. The law should be reviewed and updated to include a broader spectrum more severe penalties for sexual offenders.
Many people have described the current law on sexual offences as being incoherent and archaic besides being discriminatory. The ongoing legislative reforms have been described as very sensitive and complicated as they require the integration of the government and other stakeholders that owe the public the duty of care. Reforms aim at creating laws that are fit for the current generation. They should also provide confidence, protection and remain to be a true and accepted parameter of a civilized and free society. The criminal laws on sex offences must incorporate protection of the children, mentally impaired, and other incapacitated group.
The previous Acts failed to fully protect persons with limited or questionable decision-making capacities from sexual abuse and exploitation. In People (DPP) v XY by White J [2010], the plaintiff forced a woman who had mental issues to have oral sex with him. The English Sexual Offences Act of 2003 prohibit quite a wide range of sexual exploitative actions including sexual touching and publicly engaging in sexual activities .
Victims of sexual assault can seek for support from Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs). There is also emergency number 999 that one can report any cases of sexual assault cases. Victims are asked not to shower and keep their clothes on without washing them because this would assist in evidence retrieval.
Sexual offenders should be identified while keeping the victims unknown. They should be restrained from going near schools and playgrounds or visiting swimming baths and parks since that may put people at risk. The reforms have strengthened the requirements of notification by reducing the number of days from 14 to 3 days with which sexual offenders must comply with following their release from prisons. The offenders must also report their plans to travel abroad. The maximum penalty for defying the notification requirement was raised from six months to five years imprisonment.
Key Concerns in the Law of Self-defence and the Reforms
The law of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force to defend himself/herself. The situation is allowed in both the Criminal Law Act of 1967, and the common law. Self-defence is not an excuse, but a justification. Opinions differ on what entails reasonable force as defined in the law of self-defence. The defendant has no right to determine the reasonability of the force he or she used and therefore he or she may never be found guilty.
It is upon the jury to decide a reasonable and allowed force in circumstances of self-defence cases. The test should balance the aimed standards and ensure that the subjective knowledge of the defendant is considered, that is, what he or she believed about the situation, even if it was a mistaken circumstance. The jury should prove that the force used is reasonable and proportionate to the value of benefits being protected and the possible harm that would be caused by the use of force.
Concerns have been raised on the fact that some people have successfully used defence of provocation and self-defence to perpetrate ill motive and win any litigation in the courts of law. Justice, fairness, common sense, perception, common law, law reforms, and cultural involvement are all necessary to avoid the misuse of the laws.
The case of Palmer v The Queen [1971] is a classic test on self-defence. Common sense is required for understanding of the case which does not involve abstruse legal thought. Every form of self-defence depends on the facts circumstances that are considerable. In situations, it would be necessary to perform simple avoiding actions. In R v Lindsay [1998], the defendant used a sword to defend himself when he was attacked by three masked burglars who had handguns and killed one of the intruders by rocking and slashing him repeatedly. The court ruled that although he initially reacted in self-defence, he lost self-control and demonstrated intent to kill the intruder.
The most important aspect of self-defence is to ponder upon an extent to which force is considered reasonable. Until the year 2013, the force used in self-defence had to be justifiable, and proportionate to be regarded as reasonable. Introduction of section 76 (5A) into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 of England allowed homeowners to use disproportionate force.
The law of self-defence must be able to accommodate protection of victims who are fighting to defend themselves. The reforms in the law of self-defence should aim at allowing a wide range of evidence to be presented in the court in the case where the incident of self-defence was raised so that the jury can understand the cumulative effects of violence. In the family context, women are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence than men, who are usually the perpetrators. The reforms are aimed at providing justice to everyone.
The recommended reforms should strengthen the criminal code so that self-defence may only be used where the threat existed. The loopholes in the law of self-defence need to be cleared so that both the parties receive justice. A person cannot rely on delusions or mental illness or drug-related psychosis as a reason for self-defence. The reforms require the jury to make decisions on necessity and reasonableness of self-defence events.
Key Concerns in the Law of the Loss of Self Control and the Reforms
The defence of provocation was abolished in 2009 and replaced by loss of control. As opposed to provocation, the law of loss of control did not have to be sudden. This was to assist women who reacted to situations differently. The law commission in 2006 proposed that the law of loss of control be abolished to assist women who are in abusive relationships arguing that it excluded women who kill.
The Law Commission also indicated that the law of loss of self-control lacked clear foundation and sharpness in psychology. Although valiant, it was flawed, and it may even be used to support those who kill in revenge. In addition to the gender criticisms of the law of self-control, it may favor the context within which people murder or commit lethal violence. Loss of control law reveals gender bias in its formulation. As opposed to men who lash out when angry, women were unlikely to show sudden provocation. They tend to exercise self-control because they are often not in a position to react. Despite these concerns, the government rejected the request and did not agree with the criticism.
Section 54(2) of Coroners and Justice Act of 2009, lacks any provision for sudden loss of self-control. This was a change from the law of provocation which highlighted the loss of control ought to be sudden and at the same time temporary. The case of R v Duffy [1949] is regarded as a significant barrier to the victims of home violence. By virtue of section 54 (4), if a person reacted with an intention to revenge, they cannot rely on the defence as seen in the case of R v Ibrams & Gregory [1982].
The reforms seek to clear the loopholes that are likely to present in the defence of loss of control. Issues that the reforms should cover are: When the judge can raise the defence, whether the defence is an excuse or justifiable, anger trigger, fear of serious violence, objective jury test, the desire to revenge, and sexual infidelity. The law on defence of loss of control should meet its intended objective and should not be a justification for killings. The Law Commission suggests that a person should be able to prove a multiple of the triggers to justify killing. The proof should not only be based on defence of loss of control but should include more justifiable reasons.
Anger trigger is different from provocation. Reasoning in the trigger for anger must be justifiable. The law however experiences a number of challenges. The defendant should be able to justify reasons of being seriously wronged, but no further definitions are presented in the Act. Inconsistencies are likely to arise in the judge’s decision on anger trigger. This means that the law needs reforms to minimize inconsistencies.
The defects of the law on defence of self-control may be difficult to restore using judicial development of laws. Loss of self-control is based on the objective test of a reasonable man. However, there are more characteristics of defendants like age and sex which can be considered. The additional considerations can be very confusing to the court and should be avoided. The case of AG v Holley [2005] clarified that the mental state of the defendant should be excluded in the attributes of a reasonable man.
Previous cases should be studied before making decisions. When similar cases produce different outcomes, then there is no justice. The Law Commission advocates for various reforms to mitigate the current issues in the defence on the loss of self-control, self-defence, and sexual abuse. The three instances above are among the legal defence approaches that if not regarded with care, are prone to abuse and misinterpretations.