This judgment, emanating from a pivotal appeal, is poised to reshape the landscape of rape and related sexual offences prosecution and reporting. The SCA's deliberation centred on a crucial question: whether tacit consent to certain sexual acts could extend to others, particularly in cases involving penetration, despite prior express agreements. The judgment revisited a contentious High Court decision that stirred debate last year, challenging the notion that a complainant's consent to certain acts implied consent to others, contrary to explicit agreements.
The ruling underscored that mere submission, acquiescence, or lack of resistance does not constitute consent, particularly in penetrative sexual acts. Drawing on international jurisprudence, the SCA emphasised the need for explicit or tacit consent to each specific sexual act, rejecting the notion that consent to one form of activity encompasses consent to all. This clarification signifies that consent to foreplay or oral sex does not imply consent to vaginal penetration, providing crucial clarity in legal interpretation.
Their diligent advocacy has not only influenced legal discourse but also equipped prosecutors and courts with essential guidance to effectively combat rape and related sexual offences. Laura Macfarlane. Email laura. Jason Whyte. Email jason. Visit our global site , or select a location.
