The defendant was accused of rape. The jury sought guidance from the judge on the question of whether the complainant’s alcohol consumption may have vitiated her consent to sexual intercourse.
Held: ‘there is no special rule applicable to drink and rape. If the issue be, as here, did the woman consent? the critical question is not how she came to take the drink, but whether she understood her situation and was capable of making up her mind. In Howard [1965] 50 CAR 56 the Court of Criminal Appeal had to consider the case of a girl under 16. Lord Parker CJ said: ‘in the case of a girl under 16 the prosecution . . must prove either that she physically resisted, or, if she did not, that her understanding and knowledge was such that she was not in a position to decide whether to consent or resist ‘. In our view these words are of general application when ever there is present some factor, be it permanent or transient, suggesting the absence of such understanding or knowledge. None of this was explained to the jury. Their attention was focussed by the judge upon how she came to take drink, not upon the state of her understanding and her capacity to exercise judgment in the circumstances.’
Citations:
[1976] 62 CAR 50
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gallagher, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that other acquittals were inconsistent.
Held: They were not. Leave refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250546
