TY - JOUR
T1 - Reforming non-consensual sexual offences in Hong Kong
T2 - How do the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong's proposals compare with recent recommendations in other jurisdictions?
AU - Dyer, Andrew
AU - Crofts, Thomas
PY - 2022/9/1
Y1 - 2022/9/1
N2 - In this article, we consider the reforms to non-consensual sexual offences that the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (‘LRCHK’) has recently advocated in its Final Report about the law relating to sexual offending in that jurisdiction. We argue that a comparison between the LRCHK's proposals and those supported in recent years by Law Reform Commissions in other jurisdictions – most particularly, in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Queensland – reveals the LRCHK's recommendations generally to be sensible, balanced and progressive. The LRCHK's approach to the question of what it is to consent, and to the issue of how a person withdraws consent, is preferable to that supported by the NSW Law Reform Commission (‘NSWLRC’). Further, it seems right to have supported an objective culpability requirement for the non-consensual offences with which it was concerned. And while there are difficulties concerning certain of the LRCHK's proposals – especially, perhaps, those pertaining to fraudulently procured sexual activity – the NSWLRC's and the Queensland Law Reform Commission's respective approaches to the last mentioned topic also seem imperfect.
AB - In this article, we consider the reforms to non-consensual sexual offences that the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (‘LRCHK’) has recently advocated in its Final Report about the law relating to sexual offending in that jurisdiction. We argue that a comparison between the LRCHK's proposals and those supported in recent years by Law Reform Commissions in other jurisdictions – most particularly, in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Queensland – reveals the LRCHK's recommendations generally to be sensible, balanced and progressive. The LRCHK's approach to the question of what it is to consent, and to the issue of how a person withdraws consent, is preferable to that supported by the NSW Law Reform Commission (‘NSWLRC’). Further, it seems right to have supported an objective culpability requirement for the non-consensual offences with which it was concerned. And while there are difficulties concerning certain of the LRCHK's proposals – especially, perhaps, those pertaining to fraudulently procured sexual activity – the NSWLRC's and the Queensland Law Reform Commission's respective approaches to the last mentioned topic also seem imperfect.
KW - criminal law reform
KW - consent
KW - mistake of fact
KW - Hong Kong law
KW - fraudulently induced consent
KW - non-consensual sexual offences
U2 - 10.1177/14737795221116396
DO - 10.1177/14737795221116396
M3 - Article
VL - 51
SP - 145
EP - 171
JO - Common Law World Review
JF - Common Law World Review
SN - 1473-7795
IS - 3
ER -