In sentencing for sexual offences against children, a child's ostensible consent or acquiescence to sexual activity cannot constitute mitigation; it constitutes no more than an absence of aggravation and is ordinarily only relevant to rebut any suggestion of aggravation such as force, coercion or pressure. The use of the word 'relationship' to describe the association between an adult offender and a child victim should be avoided where it encompasses the sexual activity. A psychologist's report prepared for unrelated offences, without evidence of a causal connection between mental impairment and the sexual offending, cannot support more than a minimal reduction in moral culpability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.