CRIMINAL

Mens rea - indecent assault on girl under 16 - prosecution required to prove defendant did not believe girl 16 or overR v K: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett): 25 July 2001The defendant, aged 26, was charged with the indecent assault of a girl aged 14.

His proposed defence was that she had told him that she was16 and he had no reason to disbelieve her.At a preliminary hearing the judge ruled that the prosecution was required to prove absence of belief on the defendant's part that she was 16 or over.On the prosecution's appeal the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and concluded that there was no such requirement.

The defendant appealed.David Fisher QC and Irena Ray-Crosby (instructed by Marsh Ferriman & Cheale, Worthing) for the defendant.

Anthony Scrivener QC, Anthony Heaton-Armstrong and Patrick Moran (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution.Held, allowing the appeal, that the common law presumption that mens rea was an essential ingredient of every statutory crime applied unless excluded by express words or necessary implication; that there were no express words either in section14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or elsewhere in the Act which would exclude the need for the prosecution to prove absence of a defendant's belief as to the age of an under-age victim; that the language of the Act did not justify, as a matter of necessary implication, the exclusion of the presumption; and that, accordingly, the prosecution would be required to prove absence of the defendant's belief that the girl was 16 or over.