Interesting. I went to the link but was unable to find that particular string. You did mention section 71, part of which states,
(2) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider it to be sexual.
Section 71 refers to Sexual activity in a public lavatory and is nothing to do with sexual assault
🙂 The relevant info is this:
3 Sexual assault
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
78 "Sexual"
For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that-
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.
My bold. Section 78 simply defines the word sexual (apart from 71 i.e. toilets).
I'm less familiar with UK law than I am with American law, but common sense tells me that in order to determine sexual intent, the prosecution must establish what most people would consider sexual activity in conjunction with the act of touching. For example, if he touches her breast or vagina, most would regard that as a sexual touch. If he touches a foot or an elbow or shoulder, most would not consider that a sexual touch. Of course, if the guy whips out his member and begins mastubating after touching, that would convince a jury.
But say, if a guy at a water park tickles a foot that's mere inches from his face, a one and only occurrance, that would be impossible to establish as a sexual touch, and equally impossible to prosecute, in my opinion.
Agreed a one off would be impossible to prove. But habitual offendeing and a hard drive containing sites like this would be enough to convict.
Non-consensual touching is morally and legally wrong.