The specific definition of digital penetration can be extracted from the broader definition of sexual penetration as defined in Section 1958 of the Crimes Act. It refers to the use of fingers, specifically the thumbs or fingers, to sexually penetrate a person’s anus or vagina. Digital penetration is simply one form of sexual penetration.
A person (A) digitally penetrates another individual (B) when they use their finger(s), thumb(s), or toe(s) (to any degree) to enter B’s vagina.
A engages in digital penetration with B when they insert their fingers, thumbs, or toes (to any degree) into B’s anus. A person (A) digitally penetrates another individual (B).
The Broader Definition of Sexual Penetration
A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if either;Output: One individual (A) engages in sexual penetration with another individual (B) if either;
It is true that until 1991, digital penetration could not attract the charge of rape but only a lesser charge of indecent assault, which is not considered as serious as other forms of rape. This is often thought by people in the general community that digital penetration is not as serious as other forms of rape. The introduction of section 35 of the Crimes Act in 1958 now covers all forms of rape, including digital penetration.
In considering the circumstances surrounding the case, these examples may be seen as illustrations of what might be taken into account when a lawyer needs to make a proper assessment. When comparing a penetrative act involving a penis to digital penetration, one might consider that the risk of pregnancy or infection is not the same, nor is the risk of injury. In assessing the gravity of a penetrative act in the case, all the facts of the case must be considered, regardless of whether the means of penetration involves a digit penetrating another person. Furthermore, the legislative changes have ruled that there is no hierarchy of penetration forms in Victoria, as stated in the Lomax v R  551 VR 1 Appeal Court decision.
Sexual assault and unlawful entry of a underage individual are charges that frequently pertain to electronic penetration. The Court of Appeal, in the more recent DPP v Shrestha  VSCA 364 case, emphasized the necessity to enhance penalties for cases involving electronic penetration. It is also important to take into account.
If you are facing charges or have been charged, it is advisable to contact our office for guidance. Brown & Dribbin have dealt with numerous cases involving digital penetration. It is vital to adequately prepare and carefully consider the details of the interview and the evidence to achieve a favorable outcome. If you are asked to attend an interview or are facing charges, it is recommended that you engage the services of our office to assist you.