- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v. Morgan (1976)
Honest Belief in Consent
Citation: R v. Morgan (1976)
Area of Law: Rape & Indecent Assault (Mens Rea for Rape)
Facts:
Honest Belief in Consent
Citation: R v. Morgan (1976)
Area of Law: Rape & Indecent Assault (Mens Rea for Rape)
Facts:
- Defendant (D) invited acquaintances to his home to have sexual intercourse with his wife (V).
- D informed them that V might protest or struggle, but that this was her preferred manner of consenting.
- D and his acquaintances had sexual intercourse with V without her actual consent.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that the men should be convicted even if they believed V was consenting, if that belief was unreasonable.
- Does a genuine, but unreasonable, belief in consent negate the mens rea for rape?
- Yes. An honest belief in consent, even if unreasonable, negates the mens rea (mental state) required for rape. The belief does not have to be reasonable.
- Logically, there is no room for a defense of honest and reasonable belief (or mistake) or for a mere honest belief (or mistake) in consent.
- If the Defendant honestly believes that V was consenting, the prosecution cannot prove the required mens rea of rape.
- The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the belief is irrelevant, unless the jury considers the belief so unreasonable that it casts doubt on whether it was genuinely held.
- In other words, the unreasonableness of the belief is only relevant as evidence to assess the honesty of the belief.
- Subjective Standard: The test for mens rea in rape focuses on the Defendant's actual state of mind (did they honestly believe the victim was consenting?).
- Relevance of Reasonableness: Unreasonableness is not a direct test for guilt/innocence, but rather a factor that the jury can consider when assessing the Defendant's credibility regarding their claim of honestly believing in consent.
- This case established that a genuine, albeit unreasonable, belief in consent could be a defence to rape.
0 Comments