Sex in Room 101

Continuing my perusal of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see previous "Reckless Sex" blog), I find this section:

62 Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence

(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he commits any offence with the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence.


This section seems to me rather worrying in terms of civil liberties. Note the words "any offence". It appears to mean that someone can be found guilty of an offence they have actually not committed. Granted that many offences covered by this law are despicable (rape, child abuse), I am nonetheless profoundly uncomfortable when the law regards 'intent' as precisely equivalent to 'action'. How can this be? I am not sure what scenarios this section was intended to cover, but it opens the door to Kafkaesque possibilities. It's not all that difficult to imagine a combination of circumstances whereby a trivial offence becomes an accusation of intent to commit a sexual offence. For example:

Mr X simply cannot get tickets to a gig by his favourite band. In a moment of desperation, he goes to the venue and climbs in through a small window. Unfortunately, it's the window to the ladies toilets. Someone reports it to Security and they call the police. The police arrest him on a charge of voyeurism. Even if there is no evidence at all that he has committed an act of voyeurism, the police could argue that he entered the premises not to see the band but to commit an act of voyeurism. If he had a camera or mobile phone in his possession (quite likely with fans at gigs), that would be even more damning.

Under this law, an offence committed with intent to commit a sexual offence is regarded as the same as the act itself. In this case, his 'unlawful entry' into the venue could result in a prison sentence of 2 years for voyeurism. Unlikely? Yes, I agree. But I can easily envisage abuse of this provision - and the nightmare of having to defend oneself against a charge of intent.

I have no legal training, and am just reading this through layman's eyes. I do not know if I have totally misunderstood - I hope so. Nor do I know what proof is required of 'intent.' I would be pleased if a any legal expert reading this could clarify matters.

I have no wish to make life easy for those who commit serious sexual offences. However, once 'intent' is enshrined in law as equivalent to 'action' I feel we are on a very slippery slope. Am I the only one who worries about how a hard-line government might use this? We have already seen the Prevention of Terrorism Act misued to arrest people (for example, a protestor at a Labour Party conference).

If you haven't read George Orwell's '1984' go and read it at once. We might all end up in Room 101.

Reckless sex

Ignorance of the law is no defence in court. It doesn't matter if you were not aware that something was illegal, if you did it, you're going down. So my question is, how well do you know the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was the most comprehensive legislative reform in the area of sexuality for over 100 years. Existing legislation was updated or in some cases revoked, new offences were added. For example: bestiality and necrophilia become specific offences for the first time; some homosexual offences have been repealed, so that there is now no legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual acts. (Note: lesbianism has never been illegal in England; the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 aimed to criminalise homosexual and lesbian conduct, but Queen Victoria crossed out all references to lesbianism, stating "Female homosexuality does not exist.")

There are some passages in the Act that caught my eye, made me chuckle, caused me to think... For example:

69 Intercourse with an animal

(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally performs an act of penetration with his penis,
(b) what is penetrated is the vagina or anus of a living animal, and
(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated.

(2) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A's vagina or anus to be penetrated,
(b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
(c) A knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what A is being penetrated by.

Now, I am not a legal expert, but generally that seems quite clear. An offence is committed if a man penetrates an animal or a man or woman allows himself or herself to be penetrated by an animal. What puzzles me is the phrase "or is reckless as to whether". Huh??? What situation is that supposed to cover?

"Well, Officer, my friends had set me up with a date who they said was a stallion in bed, and because I'd had a few too many Bacardi Breezers I didn't notice he had four hooves and a tail..."

"It was like this, Officer. I was at a barbecue party. She came over to me wearing a fleece, and asked if I'd got any grass and started making sheeps-eyes at me and one thing led to another..."

Or perhaps it is a warning not to run naked around the chicken-yard sporting an erection, in case you stumble and a chicken breaks your fall? I don't know if there have been any prosecutions under this particular section of the law.

It appears that only anal or vaginal penetration is illegal - which is why celebrity Rebecca Loos could not be prosecuted when she masturbated a boar on reality TV show The Farm in October 2004 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/06/realitytv.broadcasting).

Oh, by the way, in the above extract from the Act "69" honestly is the section number.