The Court was asked whether it was open to a defendant charged with rape contrary to section 1 of the 2003 Act to rely upon a ‘deluded’ belief in the consent of the complainant.
Held: Hughes LJ said: ‘Both the common law and statute law are well used to a rule which judges a defendant by his subjective state of mind. So, for example, in the case where self-defence is at issue the defendant is to be judged according to the facts as he genuinely believed them to be, whether his belief was reasonable or not, at least unless it was attributable to voluntary intoxication. Criminal damage, which arises also in the present case is not committed if the defendant honestly believes he had (or would have had) the consent of the owner of the property damage to do what he did, even if that belief was unreasonable. But the decisive indication as to the law of rape is, we think, that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 deliberately departs from this model. It deliberately does not make belief and consent enough. The belief must not only be genuinely held; it must also be reasonable in all the circumstances. This was a conscious departure from the former law. Under the former law a genuine belief in consent (reasonable or not) was a complete defence to rape; the reasonableness of the belief was material only as a factor to be considered en route to the decision whether it was genuinely held: see the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 . . We conclude that unless and until the state of mind amounts to insanity in law, then under the rule enacted in the Sexual Offences Act beliefs in consent arising from conditions such as delusional psychotic illness or personality disorders must be judged by objective standards of reasonableness and not by taking into account a mental disorder which induced a belief which could not reasonably arise without it. The defendant’s mental condition, and its impact on his behaviour, is of course extremely relevant to sentence. If punishment is inappropriate, a non-custodial sentence may result when otherwise there would have been a substantial sentence of imprisonment, and whether a hospital order is needed by the time of trial or not. In other cases it may significantly mitigate the punishment required. In yet others, it may result in a substantial custodial sentence recognising the danger which the defendant presents.’
Judges:
Hughes LJ, Macur, Maddison JJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Crim 3, [2013] WLR(D) 43
Links:
Statutes:
Sexual Offences Act 2003 1, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Press and Another v Regina CACD 24-Oct-2013
Three defendants appealed against their convictions of assault. One defendant argued that the court did not direct the jury as to the effect of intoxication and/or post-traumatic stress disorder upon the issue of intent, and as to whether and to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470986