The House of Lords needs to sort out the mess which has emerged from its ruling in R v J, says Jonathan Rogers
In R v J [2004] UKHL 42, [2005] 1 All ER 1 the House of Lords enlarged the scope of the time limit for prosecutions for underage but consensual sexual encounters under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (SOA 1956). Lord Rodger recognised that “there may indeed be some initial difficulties” resulting from the majority opinion.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Cottrell [2007] EWCA Crim 2016, [2007] All ER (D) 01 (Aug), however, suggests that there are serious difficulties which the lower courts feel unable to resolve. I suggest that R v J was wrongly decided, and that the resulting difficulties are such that their lordships would be justified in overruling their decision.
THE DECISION IN R v J
The problem in R v J concerned “proceedings” for unlawful sexual intercourse under SOA 1956, s 6, which had to “commence” within 12 months of the offence charged (SOA 1956, s 37(2) and Sch 2, para 10(a)). Their lordships in
