Anupama Sharma on South Asian Perspectives of Gender Neutrality in Sexual Violence Laws (J Indian L & Soc)

"Addressing the Roadblocks to Gender Neutrality in Sexual And Domestic Violence Laws: A South Asian Perspective"

Anupama Sharma (PhD candidate)
Journal of Indian Law and Society
Winter 2020, Vol 11, Issue 2

pp 79-106

Abstract: Sexual and domestic violence laws across several countries in South Asia are gendered in nature. These legislation brand men as the perpetrator and women as the victim due to the wide prevalence of violence against women. In this paper, the author argues that gendered laws fail to accommodate abuse against men and other genders, as well as reinforce the one-dimensional image of women as a victim. In making this claim, the author addresses various counter-arguments made against gender neutrality and draws lessons from Bhutan, which has gender-neutral laws and also shares historical and social contextual similarity with other South Asian countries.  Click here to download the full article.

Eric Chan (JD, PCLL) and Tiffany Wong on Revisiting Section 124 of the Crimes Ordinance (HKLJ)

"Revisiting Section 124 of the Crime Ordinance"
Eric Chan (JD, PCLL) and Tiffany Wong
Hong Kong Law Journal, Volume 48, Part 3, pp. 899-924
published in December 2018

Abstract: Having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 is an offence under s 124 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200). While the prosecution need not prove mens rea as to the girl’s age, does the accused have a defence if he can prove he honestly and reasonably believed the girl was of age? In 2004, the Court of Appeal (CA) ruled no. In this article, based on recent guidance from the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Choi Wai Lun, we argue yes. On a proper construction of s 124 under the modern law on strict liability, the offence is subject to a common law defence of honest and reasonable belief. This construction is not inconsistent with the legislature’s intention expressed throughout s 124’s legislative history. Contrary to the CA’s ruling in 2004, the true history of s 124 does not show that “the reasonable belief defence has been expressly rejected in Hong Kong”. The relevance of the UK Supreme Court’s decision in R v Brown will also be considered.