Regina v Hornbuckle: 1945

The defendant answered the charge of rape by saying that he had been drunk.
Held: Lowe J said: ‘To hold that knowledge that the act of intercourse was occurring sufficiently establishes the intent, [to have intercourse without consent] because the man who knows he is committing the act must intend it, even if prima facie warranted, seems to us to fail to distinguish ‘intent to have intercourse’ from ‘intent to have intercourse without ‘consent of the female’.’
Lowe J
(1945) VLR 281
Cited by:
CitedRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.258678