2. Memorandum submitted by Professor
Liz Kelly
1. I am not convinced at all by the rationale
for it being mitigating that there was consensual sexual activity
immediately prior. To me it reinforces the "sexual incontinence"
view of male sexuality, which is not helpful in light of new consent
standards. It also implicitly plays on this idea that women give
confused signals, which is much rarer than supposed, and anyway
have to be interpreted as "signals" anyway. We all know
that these things are invitations to lawyers to invoke them, and
could have unintended spin offs with respect to sexual history,
with increased claims to (invented) prior relationship/sexual
contact.
I also raise the following for consideration:
1. The implications for child contact in
cases where the offender is a family member of sex offender prevention
orders.
2. The problematic use of "sexual deviance",
given that most experts do not view offenders through this lens.
3. Including filming/photographing assaults
on mobile phones as an aggravating factor.
4. p48 including buying/selling another
person in aggravating factors for trafficking.
June 2006
| 
