R v G

The House of Lords heard an appeal against conviction and sentence brought by an appellant who had been convicted of raping a child under 13 contrary to section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The appellant, who had been 15 years old at the time of the offence, argued that his conviction violated his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the offence was one of strict liability. He also argued that his conviction violated his right to privacy under article 8 because it was disproportionate to charge him with rape when he could have been charged with a less serious offence under section 13 of the Act, which deals with sex offences committed by persons under 18. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed an appeal against sentence and substituted a conditional discharge. It certified two questions as being of general public importance: (1) May a criminal offence of strict liability violate article 6(1) and/or 6(2)? (2) Is it compatible with a child’s rights under article 8 to convict him of rape contrary to section 5 in circumstances where the agreed basis of plea establishes that his offence fell properly within the ambit of section 13? The House of Lords held, allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction, that although the conviction did not violate article 6, it did violate article 8. The Court held that the appellant's conviction under section 5 was disproportionate as the offence fell properly within the ambit of section 13. The Court held that Parliament had given prosecutors and sentencers a wide discretion as to which offence to charge and what punishment to impose, depending on the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the appellant's conviction for rape under section 5 was a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life under article 8.