Skip to main content

consent

ID
256

AA v. Fiscalía General de la Nación, Caso No. 299/2010

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to two years in prison for aggravated domestic violence.  The court considered the aggravating circumstances to be the accused’s recidivism and the use of his strength to overpower his female victim.  AA had a history of domestic violence against his wife (BB).  Even though he had repeatedly assaulted BB and stabbed her once, BB refused to file a complaint against him.  A family court judge imposed a restraining order against AA pursuant to which he could not get closer than 300 meters to BB and her children.

Ah-Chong v. The Queen

Appellant Ah-Chong was convicted of assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape.  As a defense, Ah-Chong claimed that the victim consented to the sexual activity.  The trial judge gave the jury instructions that they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe that consent existed.  The appellant argued that the jury instructions were wrong, claiming that there were two separate mens rea elements: one for the assault and one for intention to rape.

Ap.-Kz. 307/2012

The victim, a minor of the age of 15, was trafficked by men including defendants I.I. and Sh. G, from Albania to Kosovo, where she was imprisoned and forced to work as dancer at multiple restaurants.  She eventually escaped and met two men who helped her find accommodations and work as a waitress.  One of the men, S.B., had sexual intercourse with her, as did D.B., the manager who hired her as a waitress.  I.I., Sh.

Attorney-General v. Tion

The respondent had drunken intercourse with the complainant. He claimed that he mistook the complainant for his wife in his drunken stupor. She also mistook the respondent to be her husband during the intercourse. After intercourse, she realized that the respondent was not her husband.  The respondent also claimed that he did not know the complainant was not his wife until this moment. Consequently, the court acquitted the respondent of rape and criminal trespass.

Baudžiamasis Kodeksas (Criminal Code)

Under the Criminal Code, rape is defined quite narrowly as “sexual intercourse against a person’s will with the use or threat of physical violence present or deprivation of possibility of resistance.” There is also no mention of rape in marriage. To hold a person liable for rape, which is punished by imprisonment for up to seven years, the victim or their representative must file a complaint. However, in the case of rape (i) by a group of accomplices or (ii) of a minor or a young child, the term of imprisonment can be longer, and complaint filing is not needed.

Blake v. R.

The applicant pleaded guilty before the Circuit Court of Westmoreland for the offence of having sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, in violation of section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was in a serious relationship with the underage girl, but the matter was brought to the attention of the police when the complainant discovered she was pregnant and there was a dispute regarding the defendant’s paternity (tests showed he indeed was the father).

Case No. B 2590-16 – F.L. through the Prosecutor General v. W.B.F.

A man, W.B.F., put his cell phone camera under a woman’s skirt and took pictures of her on an escalator in a subway station in Stockholm. The woman, F.L., did not notice the picture being taken, but was made aware of it shortly thereafter. Under Swedish law, taking insulting pictures of another person is prohibited only if the person being photographed is inside a house or in another location especially purposed for privacy.

Chepkwony v. Republic

The appellant was convicted of defilement for having sexual intercourse with the complainant, who was 12 years old at the time.  The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.  He appealed, arguing that the prosecution did not satisfy its burden of proofs, that there was no evidence of violent force, that the complainant was his girlfriend, and that she consented.  The prosecution presented evidence of the complainant's physical injuries and the appellant's HIV-positive status.  The Court dismissed the appeal because sex with any girl younger than 16

Code of Virginia: Rape (Va. Code § 18.2-61)

This Virginia law defines rape as sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, or causing a complaining witness to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person, regardless of the existence of a spousal relationship and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim.

Subscribe to consent