Contents

[close]

JCL 73 (2009) 318

'A drunken consent is still consent'- or is it? A critical analysis of the law on a drunken consent to sex following Bree
Shlomit Wallerstein

Does a person who is voluntarily drunk remain capable of giving valid consent to sex? The Court of Appeal in Bree held that 'a drunken consent is still (valid) consent', though it further recognises that the capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. This decision is a move in the right direction, yet this article argues that it has not gone far enough, and that s. 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which governs these scenarios allows-and even requires-a more drastic interpretation: a drunken consent is not consent when the person is very drunk. Based on a distinction between factual and legal consent, the article starts by setting up the legal framework as set out in s. 74, and developed in Bree and H. It then goes on to criticise the current case law and its interpretation of s. 74 for not being restrictive enough, by examining two possible theoretical rationales, mentioned in the judgments. The first, which is based on an analogy with the law relating to intoxicated offenders, is criticised on the grounds of differences between consent and intent. The second, which is based on the general argument that this position recognises the positive aspect of sexual autonomy, is criticised for its failure to distinguish between claims of normative facts and claims of public policy and for giving too much weight to the latter considerations. From the discussion an alternative, more restrictive position, emerges in line with s. 74 of the 2003 Act, according to which a drunken consent is not consent. This position can be adopted by judges, through the provision of better guidance to juries, but failing that a reform of the law might be needed.

[close]

[close]

JCL 73 (2009) 345

Banksy's graffiti: a not-so-simple case of criminal damage?
Ian Edwards

Graffiti artists are, if caught, most likely to be prosecuted under s. 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This article explores the extent to which the substantive definition of criminal damage applies to them. There is no separate exculpatory or justificatory defence of 'aesthetic value', and so graffiti artists must argue that they either have not 'damaged' property, they lacked mens rea or they had lawful excuse. It is argued that the work of artists such as Banksy forces a reappraisal of the precision and applicability of criminal damage.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 65 (2001) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 66 (2002) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 67 (2003) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 68 (2004) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 69 (2005) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 70 (2006) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 71 (2007) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 72 (2008) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4

[close]