Consent in the Law Relating to Sexual Offences

doi:10.1017/9781108649742.005

5 - Consent in the Law Relating to Sexual Offences

from Part II - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019

Tom O’Malley and

Elisa Hoven

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Thomas Weigend and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

It seems obvious that the presence or absence of consent can make all the difference between, on the one hand, a meaningful and loving sexual act between two people and, on the other, a serious violation of the human dignity and personal autonomy of one of those people. Yet, there is a surprising degree of uncertainty as to the precise circumstances in which a person can genuinely be treated as consenting. This is scarcely a satisfactory state of affairs in an era where there is a growing and welcome emphasis internationally on the importance of the right to sexual autonomy. The comparative analysis we undertake in this chapter will reveal parallels between the British and Irish jurisdictions and Germany insofar as the meaning and scope of consent are concerned. It will also show that certain situations are evaluated quite differently, with the English-speaking jurisdictions tending to be more restrictive when it comes to accepting the presence of valid consent. Recent developments in German criminal law may, however, point in the direction of a rapprochement between the two sets of jurisdictions. It may well be that global tendencies toward stronger protection of the interests of women in particular overshadow the formerly more ‘liberal’ instincts of German law.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 135 - 171

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649742.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M. and McAuslan, P., ‘Alcohol and Sexual Assault’, Alcohol Research and Health, 25 (2001), 43–51.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Comment on R v. G [2008] UKHL’, 37, Criminal Law Review (2008), 818–20.Google Scholar

Bailey, V. and Blackburn, S., ‘The Punishment of Incest Act 1908: A Case Study of Law Creation’, Criminal Law Review (1979), 708–18.Google Scholar

Benyon, C. M., McVeigh, C., McVeigh, L., Leavey, C. and Bellis, M. A., ‘The Involvement of Drugs and Alcohol in Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of the Evidence’, Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 9 (2008), 178–88.Google Scholar

Bowsher, P., ‘Incest – Should Incest between Consenting Adults Be a Crime?’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 208–18.Google Scholar

Brayne, H., Sergeant, L. and Brayne, L., ‘Could Boxing Be Banned? A Legal and Epistemological Perspective’, British Medical Journal, 316 (1998), 1813.Google Scholar

Byrd, B. S., ‘Kant’s Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in its Threat, Retribution in Its Execution’, Law and Philosophy, 8 (1989), 151–200.CrossRef Google Scholar

Card, R., Sexual Offences: The New Law, Bristol, Jordans (2004).Google Scholar

Clough, A., ‘Conditional Consent and Purposeful Deception’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 82 (2018), 178–90.Google Scholar

Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duttge, G., ‘Strafbarkeit des Geschwisterinzestes aufgrund ‘eugenischer Gesichtspunkte?’, in Heinrich, M., Jäger, C. and Schünemann, B. (eds.), Strafrecht als Scientia Universalis – Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 80. Geburtstag am 15. Mai 2011, Berlin, De Gruyter (2011), 227–44.Google Scholar

Eser, A., Perron, W., Sternberg-Lieben, D., Eisele, J., Hecker, B., Kinzig, J., Bosch, N., Schuster, F., Weißer, B. and Schittenhelm, U., in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar

Farmer, L., Making the Modern Criminal Law: Criminalisation and Civil Order, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Harm to Self, Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar

Finnis, J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press (2004).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2000).Google Scholar

Harcourt, B., ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90 (1999), 109–94.Google Scholar

Harcourt, B, ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux: On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court’s Opinion in United States v. Windsor, John Stuart Mill’s Essay On Liberty (1859) and H. L. A. Hart’s Modern Harm Principle’, University of Chicago Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper (2013).Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford University Press (1963).Google Scholar

Herring, J, ‘Mistaken Sex’, Criminal Law Review (2005), 511–24.Google Scholar

Herring, J, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar

Hindmarch, I. and Brinkman, R., ‘Trends in the Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs in Cases of Sexual Assault’, Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 14 (1999), 225–31.Google Scholar

Home Office, Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sexual Offences, Home Office, London (2000).Google Scholar

Horder, J, Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar

Hörnig, D. and Wolff, H. A. (eds.), Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Handkommentar, 12th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2018).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Das Verbot des Geschwisterinzests – Verfassungsgerichtliche Bestätigung und verfassungsrechtliche Kritik’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 61 (2008), 2085–8.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Das Gesetz zur Verbesserung sexueller Selbstbestimmung’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 13 (2017), 13–21.Google Scholar

Hoven, E., ‘Bestechlichkeit als Nötigung?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 128 (2016), 173–93.Google Scholar

Hoven, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Nein heißt Nein’ – und viele Fragen offen. Zur Neugestaltung der Strafbarkeit sexueller Übergriffe’, Juristenzeitung, 18 (2017), 182–91.Google Scholar

Hoven, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit von Täuschungen im Sexualstrafrecht’, Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 3 (2018), 156–61.Google Scholar

Hurd, H. M., ‘The Moral Magic of Consent’, Legal Theory 2 (1996), 121–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Husak, D., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar

Joecks, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, IV: §§ 185–262, 4 vols. 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Kant, I., Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. McGregor, M. J., Cambridge University Press ( 1996).Google Scholar

Kant, I., ‘Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre’, in Höffe, O. (ed.), Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Berlin, De Gruyter (1999).Google Scholar

Kell, D., ‘Social Disutility and the Law on Consent’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14 (1994) 121–35.Google Scholar

Kuhlen, L., ‘Drohungen und Versprechungen’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Streitbare Strafrechtwissenschaft – Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70. Geburtstag am 1. November 2014, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 611–30.Google Scholar

Laird, K., ‘Rapist or Rogue? Deception, Consent and the Sexual Offences Act 2003’, Criminal Law Review (2014), 492–510.Google Scholar

Laufhütte, H. R., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Leipziger Kommentar – Großkommentar, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014).Google Scholar

Law Commission of England and Wales, Consent in the Criminal Law, Consultation Paper 139, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1995).Google Scholar

Lyon, M. R., ‘No Means No? Withdrawal of Consent during Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape’, J. Crim. L. and Criminology, 95 (2004), 277–314.Google Scholar

Mackinnon, C., Only Words, Harvard University Press (1993).Google Scholar

Mill, J. S., On Liberty (1859), London, Penguin Books (1982).Google Scholar

Miller, F. G. and Wertheimer, A. (eds.), The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar

Moran, L. J., ‘Laskey v. The United Kingdom: Learning the Limits of Privacy’, Modern Law Review, 61 (1988), 77–84.Google Scholar

Munro, V., ‘Sexual Autonomy’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Murphy, J. G., Retribution, Justice and Therapy: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1979).Google Scholar

Murphy, J. G., ‘Does Kant Have a Theory of Punishment?’, Columbia Law Review, 87 (1987), 509–32.Google Scholar

O’Malley, T., Sexual Offences, 2nd edn, Dublin, Round Hall (2013).Google Scholar

O’Malley, T., ‘The New Law on Sexual Offences’, Irish Criminal Law Journal, 27 (2017), 78–89.Google Scholar

O’Neill, O. ‘Between Consenting Adults’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14 (1985), 252–77.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar

Renzikowski, J., ‘Nein! – Das neue Sexualstrafrecht’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 49 (2016), 3553–8.Google Scholar

Rook, P. and Ward, R., Sexual Offences: Law and Practice, 5th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell (2016).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit des Geschwisterinzests’, Strafverteidiger, 29 (2009), 544–50.Google Scholar

Ryan, V. M., ‘Intoxicating Encounters: Allocating Responsibility in the Law of Rape’, California Western Law Review, 40 (2004), 407–29.Google Scholar

Sharpe, A., ‘Expanding Liability for Sexual Fraud through the Concept of “Active Deception”: A Flawed Approach’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (2016), 28–44.Google Scholar

Sharpe, A., ‘Queering Judgment: The Case of Gender Identity Fraud’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 81 (2017), 417–35.Google Scholar

Shute, S., ‘The Second Law Commission Consultation Paper on Consent’, Criminal Law Review (1996), 684–93.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2018).Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R., ‘The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (2): Child and Family Offences’, Criminal Law Review (2004), 347–60.Google Scholar

Temkin, J. and Ashworth, A., ‘The Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) Rape, Sexual Assaults and the Problem of Consent’, Criminal Law Review (2004), 348–6.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, A., ‘Consent and Sexual Relations’, in Miller, F. G. and Wertheimer, A., The Ethics of Consent, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Offences and Defences’, Legal Studies, 2 (1992), 233–56.Google Scholar

Williams, R., ‘Deception, Mistake and Vitiation of the Victim’s Consent’, Law Quarterly Review, 124 (2008), 132–59.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.