Regina v Blight: 1903

(New Zealand) The Criminal Code in force at the time, reflecting the English, included an offence of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, to which a one month time limit applied, and also an offence of indecent assault to which no time limit applied but to which, in the case of a young victim, consent was not a defence. After the time limit expired, the defendant was prosecuted for indecent assault, he having had sexual intercourse with a girl under 16.
Held: (Majority) This was impermissible: ‘In the present case it is clear that everything done by the accused was an offence under section 196 [unlawful sexual intercourse] and nothing more. I think, therefore, the prosecution was instituted out of time. If the above construction be not adopted the result is that no effect could be given to section 196, and that section would be practically expunged from the Act, and the protection given by the time limit would be quite illusory.’


Williams J


(1903) 22 NZLR 837


ApprovedRegina v Cotton 1896
The Act provided that on a trial for rape the jury, if not satisfied that the defendant was guilty of rape but satisfied that he was guilty of having intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16, contrary to section 5(1) of the Act, might convict . .

Cited by:

Not FollowedRegina v Saraswati 1989
(Criminal Court of Appeal – New South Wales) The defendant appealed convictions on counts of indecency with a child, the only evidence relied on, in relation to some counts, being evidence of full sexual intercourse. Statutory time limits precluded . .
CitedRegina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.216523