The defendants appealed againts their convictions for rape and against sentence. The victims was the second defendant’s wide.
Held: Applying Morgan, the first defendant’s belief that the victim was consenting was an answer to the charge. His belief was real if unreasonable. However the acquittal of the first defendant based upon a mistaken belief did not mean that no rape had taken place, and accordingly the second defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting such stood: ‘Her ravishment had come about because L had wanted it to happen and had taken action to see that it did by persuading Cogan to use his body as the instrument for the necessary physical act. In the language of the law the act of sexual intercourse without the wife’s consent was the actus reus: it had been procured by L who had the appropriate mens rea, namely his intention that Cogan should have sexual intercourse with her without her consent. In our judgment it is irrelevant that the man whom L had procured to do the physical act himself did not intend to have sexual intercourse with the wife without her consent. L was using him as a means to procure a criminal purpose.’
Lawton LJ, James LJ, Bristow J
[1975] EWCA Crim 2, [1975] 3 WLR 316,, [1975] 2 All ER 1059, (1975) 61 Cr App Rep 217, (1975) 139 JP 608, [1976] QB 217
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Quick CACD 18-Apr-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling by the judge as to the meaning of the phrase ‘a defect of reason, from disease of the mind’ within the meaning of the M’Naughten Rules. More particularly . .
Cited – Regina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Cited – Walters v Lunt and another 1951
The respondents had been charged under section 33(1) of the 1916 Act with receiving from a child aged seven years, certain articles knowing them to have been stolen.
Held: A child under eight years was deemed in law to be incapable of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.249932
