New Law Journal
1252 - 1253.
I argued that the decision in R v J was fundamentally flawed because their Lordships had not considered that an arbitrary time limit which prevents meritorious prosecutions for underage sexual intercourse may violate Article 8 ECHR. I suggested that this should be one rare case where their Lordships ought to reverse one of their own decisions.
|Additional information:||cited with approval in the Criminal Law Review|
|Keywords:||time limit, underage sexual intercourse, R v J, Article 8 ECHR|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Arts and Social Sciences > Faculty of Laws|
Archive Staff Only