R v Thomas [1985] Crim LR 677
Sexual offences and indecent assault on children under sixteen under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Facts
A school caretaker was convicted on two counts of indecent assault on female students. The first count concerned an 11-year-old girl’s allegation that the caretaker rubbed the bottom of her skirt and lifted it on two occasions, yet with no witnesses. The second count concerned a 12-year-old girl’s allegation that the caretaker touched the bottom of her skirt and rubbed it whilst she was in the library. The jury had acquitted the caretaker on ten other similar allegations.
Issues
The first question concerned whether the testimony of other alleged victims of similar assaults can constitute corroborative evidence. The second question raised concerned whether the incident of touching a girl’s skirt is capable in law to amount to an indecent assault for the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Decision / Outcome
Regarding the first count, the Court held that the testimony of other alleged victims of a similar assault, which the jury acquitted, cannot constitute corroborative evidence to support the victim’s testimony. Regarding the second count, the Court held that to constitute an indecent assault for the act must be either ‘inherently indecent’ or occurred in circumstances to allow an inference of indecency. The Court held that the nature of the act was not inherently indecent nor could the inference be drawn. The Court suggested that putting a hand up the skirt or touching limbs would be examples of an indecent assault. While the Court did confirm that the touching of the clothing without consent an assault, it held that it does not constitute an indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (ss. 14(1)(2), 15(1)(2)). Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal on both counts.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in R v Thomas [1985] Crim LR 677, including the two-limb test for indecent assault (whether the act is inherently indecent or occurred in circumstances permitting an inference of indecency) and the corroboration point.
Readers should note an important legislative development: the Sexual Offences Act 1956, under which the defendant in this case was charged, was repealed and replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The 2003 Act abolished the offence of indecent assault and introduced a new framework of sexual offences, including sexual assault (s. 3) and sexual activity with a child (s. 9). The 2003 Act applies a broader and differently structured test for what constitutes a ‘sexual’ act, replacing the ‘inherently indecent’ approach discussed in this case. R v Thomas therefore no longer reflects the current statutory framework, though it retains historical and doctrinal relevance for understanding the development of sexual offences law and may still be cited in academic discussion of how the law has evolved. Students should treat the case as illustrative of the pre-2003 legal position only.
On the corroboration point, the requirement for corroboration warnings in sexual offence cases was abolished by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (s. 32), which further limits the contemporary relevance of that aspect of the decision.
