The Court of Appeal has today agreed with the Attorney General,
Rt Hon QC MP, that it is not necessary in a sexual assault
case for the prosecution to prove that the offender’s intent was
sexual. The Attorney referred this case in her role as ‘Guardian
of the Public Interest’.
The Attorney General asked the Court to clarify the law in this
area after a defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons,
was found not guilty of a sexual assault for forcefully kissing a
woman on the mouth.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that what happened to
the victim was clearly both an “assault” and also “sexual” as it
involved a forceable kiss on the victim. The defence said it was
not “sexual” if the defendant did not intend it to be. The Judge
agreed with the defence.
The Court of Appeal has now ruled that this is not the case – a
sexual assault can be argued if the evidence supports it
regardless of whether the defendant intended the assault to be
sexual. This will provide clarity for future cases, although it
will not affect the original case.
Commenting on the judgment the Attorney General said:
“In my role as Guardian of the Public Interest I argued that an
assault did not need to be intended to be sexual to amount to
sexual assault. I am pleased that the Court has agreed with me.”
“I welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment which will provide
greater clarity for future cases – especially for victims of
sexual assault.”
Notes to Editors
-
The Attorney General was acting independently of Government,
in her role as ‘Guardian of the Public Interest’.
-
The Attorney has the power to ask the Court of Appeal for
clarification on important points of law in some cases where
a defendant has been acquitted at trial - which means ‘found
not guilty’. The Criminal Law Act 1972 provides the Attorney
General with a power to refer a point of law to the Court of
Appeal.
-
The Court heard the Attorney General’s argument on 26
November.
-
The underlying case involved an incident where the defendant
forcefully and sloppily kissed a woman on the mouth. The
victim pushed the defendant away. During the trial, the
prosecution put forward the case that this was not just an
assault, but a sexual assault given its circumstances and its
perception by the victim.
-
The defendant cannot be named for legal reasons.
-
The ruling today will not change the original verdict, nor
will there be a re-trial.
