- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- R v Court (1989) HL
Indecent Assault and Sexual Intent
I. Case Citation: R v Court [1989] HL
II. Facts of the Case:
Indecent Assault and Sexual Intent
I. Case Citation: R v Court [1989] HL
II. Facts of the Case:
- Defendant (D) worked in a shop.
- D asked a 12-year-old girl if she would allow him to spank her.
- The girl refused.
- D seized the girl and spanked her repeatedly on her backside.
- D admitted to the spanking upon arrest.
- D stated his motive was a "buttock fetish."
- Determining the criteria for establishing "indecent assault," particularly when the act itself is not overtly sexual.
- The role of the defendant's motive in determining indecency.
- Not all indecent assaults are explicitly sexual; they can possess sexual undertones.
- A jury must determine if an assault is indecent.
- Objective Test: The jury must first consider whether "right-minded persons" would regard the assault as indecent, assessing if the act was "so offensive to contemporary standards of modesty and privacy as to be indecent" (per Lord Ackner).
- Subjective Element (Conditional): If the assault is objectively neither clearly decent nor clearly indecent, the jury can then consider the defendant's state of mind and any secret sexual motive to determine if the circumstances of the assault were indecent.
- Indecency Standard: Indecency is evaluated based on contemporary standards of modesty and privacy.
- Dual Test for Indecency: Objective test based on societal standards, with a subjective element (defendant's motive) considered only when the act is not clearly indecent or decent on its own.
- Clarifies the definition of indecent assault by acknowledging that acts with sexual undertones, not just overtly sexual acts, can be indecent.
- Establishes a framework for juries to assess indecency, incorporating both objective societal standards and, under specific circumstances, the defendant's subjective intent.
0 Comments