R v G (2008)
The strict liability offence of rape of a child under 13 was compatible with the right to a fair trial, and prosecuting it in a case of apparently consensual sex between teenagers was not a breach of human rights.
Facts
G, a 15 year old boy, had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 12. He said that she had consented and had told him she was 15, which he believed. He pleaded guilty to rape of a child under 13 under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which made sexual intercourse with a child under 13 an offence regardless of consent or the defendant's belief about the child's age. He argued that the strict liability nature of the offence breached the presumption of innocence in article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that prosecuting him for rape rather than a lesser offence breached his right to respect for private life under article 8.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that there was no breach of article 6, because article 6(2) is concerned with procedural fairness, not with the substantive content of the criminal law, and Parliament was entitled to make the offence one of strict liability in order to protect children under 13. The majority also held that there was no breach of article 8, because the prosecution was justified to protect young children from sexual activity, whatever their apparent consent. Lady Hale said that the purpose of the offence was to protect children under 13 from sexual activity, which they may not appreciate the significance of. The European Court of Human Rights later declared G's application inadmissible.
Related cases on strict liability
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
- B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411
- Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1
- Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999] 3 All ER 302
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 903
- R v K [2001] UKHL 41, [2002] 1 AC 462
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
