New Zealand Law/Criminal/Sex Crimes

Sexual Violation

 * 1) Male rapes female; or
 * 2) Unlawful sexual connection with another.

Sexual Connection

 * (a) 	penetration of the genitalia or anus by:
 * (i) any part of the body; or
 * (ii) any object,
 * other than for bona fide medial purposes;
 * (b) connection btwn the mouth and genitalia for any other purpose
 * (c) 	continuation of these acts.

1. Male rapes female
Sexual connection by a man without consent or without believing on reasonable grounds that a woman consents.

2. Unlawful sexual connection
Sexual connection without consent or without believing on reasonable grounds that a person consents.

3. Inducing sexual connection by coercion
Sexual connection with another knowing that person has been induced to consent by a express or implied threat:
 * (a) of imprisonment offence;
 * (b) of accusation (true of false) of misconduct by any person (living or dead) that will seriously damage the reputation of that person;
 * (c) to make improper use of any power or authority arising out of employment or commercial relationship.

4. Incest
Sexual intercourse between:
 * (a) parent and child;
 * (b) brother and sister;
 * (c) grandparent and grandchild.

R v Daniels

 * Facts
 * Morgan invited buddies to have sex with wife. Rape requires knowledge or recklessness re consent.

(Note: Rape must now be based on honest and reasonable belief.)
 * Held HL
 * 1) Honest belief need not be reasonable.
 * 2) Reasonableness is evidence of whether belief really held.
 * 3) Defendants could not have reasonably believed.

R v Pauga

 * Facts
 * 1) P charged with rape.
 * 2) The only evidence against the defendant was a videotaped interview, in which he said the victim wanted to have sex with him because she was scared he would beat her up.
 * 3) Defendant argued that lack of consent could not be proved from interview alone – there must be some evidence from the complainant.


 * Held
 * 1) No rule of law that conviction cannot be sustained from accused’s confession alone.
 * 2) A reasonable jury, properly directed could be allowed to safely come to a conclusion.
 * 3) Jury should be advised:
 * - video is only evidence
 * - evidence comes solely from defendant
 * - evidence not given under oath or subject to cross-exam
 * - no corroboration
 * - highly unusual for prosecution case to rely on confession alone
 * - must be sure crime committed ie. essential elements established
 * - must consider evidence anxiously and carefully
 * - could be other reasons for admission, eg. fantasy, attention
 * - jury must be sure of guilt.