R v K
A man who honestly believed a girl was 16 or over was not guilty of indecent assault on a girl under 16, because the offence required mens rea as to age.
Facts
K, a man aged 26, engaged in consensual sexual activity with a 14 year old girl. He was charged with indecent assault on a girl under 16, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, under which a girl under 16 could not consent. He said that she had told him she was 16 and that he believed her. The trial judge ruled that an honest belief that the girl was 16 or over would be a defence.
Legal principle
The House of Lords agreed with the trial judge. Following B (A Minor) v DPP, the presumption of mens rea applied, and there was nothing in the 1956 Act to displace it, given the confused and inconsistent way the Act dealt with mens rea for different offences. The prosecution therefore had to prove that the defendant did not honestly believe that the girl was 16 or over. The law was later changed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which sets out specific mens rea requirements for offences against children.
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 G (2008) [2008] UKHL 37, [2009] 1 AC 92
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.
