Clause 20 - Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
These amendments address the same point: although amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 206 relate to later clauses, they are worded in the same way as amendment No. 202, so it is correct that they have all been grouped together.
I will illustrate the point by discussing clause 20. Amendment No. 202 would delete the words,
''for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification''.
I wish to make it clear that I do not object to this clause in principle, but I invite the Committee to read it with those words deleted:
''A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally engages in an activity,
(b) the activity is sexual,
(c) . . . he engages in it in the presence of another person (B), knowing or believing that B is aware, or intending that B should be aware, that he is engaging in it,
(d) A is in a position of trust in relation to B,
(e) where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B''.
It goes on, but I need not read any further.
My question is simple: what is the purpose of introducing the following words as a preface to subsection (1)(c):
''for the purpose of gaining sexual gratification''?
The activity already has to be sexual within the terms of clause 79, which we have considered, so what does that phrase add? A sexual activity would have to be very unusual to be performed not for the purpose of sexual gratification, although I am aware that permutations of human behaviour are almost endless.
That phrase requires something further to be proved that is not otherwise necessary. Why do we require that to be proved? There is an argument that the words,
''for the purpose of gaining sexual gratification''
duplicate the meaning of the words,
''the activity is sexual''.
That is why I want to delete the first of those phrases. If the Under-Secretary can provide me with a good reason why it should remain, I will withdraw the amendment. However, he may conclude that those words are unnecessary in this context—and that that is the case in the other clauses as well.