header-logo header-logo

18 January 2007 / Kjersti Lehmann
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Rape date

Timing should not let rapists off the hook argues
Kjersti Lehmann

in brief

 No transitional provisions were put in place after SOA 2003 came into force and previous Acts of Parliament were repealed. As a result it is, at present, not possible to convict a person for sexual offences if it cannot be proved whether the offence was committed before, on or after 1 May 2004. 

 A solution to this unsatisfactory situation is given in VCRA, s 55. When implemented, s 55 will provide that in circumstances in which it is not possible to prove the date of the offence, and the offence may straddle the two legislative regimes, then it may be presumed that it was committed pre-May 2004.

 

 

On 1 May 2004 the central provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) were brought into force. The Sexual Offences Act of 1956 (SOA 1956) was repealed, meaning that a sexual offence committed on or after 1 May 2004 will be an offence under SOA 2003. Any offence that took place before this date remains liable to prosecution under SOA 1956. Although SOA

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll