Can Touching Always Be Sexual When There is No Sexual Intent?

The objective test introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as to the sexual nature of the touching that constitutes sexual assault can lead to injustices, particularly where the defendant exposed the victim to nudity without intending—or being reckless-that his or her act assume a sexual character. To hold otherwise is tantamount to imposing strict liability, which was not intended by Parliament. The courts must assess each case on its merits and differentiate all those cases involving an element of moral involuntariness from those that do not. Equally, the courts should, where appropriate, permit the defence of necessity where the defendant did not intend, but was not negligent, as to the sexual nature of his act.