DPP v Morgan: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.2.7.1) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Morgan invited three friends to his house, and invited them to have [[sexual intercourse]] with his wife. The friends later claimed that Morgan told them that his wife was "[[Kink (sexual)|kinky]]", and would feign protest. The four men forcibly overcame the wife's resistance and each one had intercourse without her consent. |
Morgan invited three friends to his house, and invited them to have [[sexual intercourse]] with his wife. The friends later claimed that Morgan told them that his wife was "[[Kink (sexual)|kinky]]", and would feign protest. The four men forcibly overcame the wife's resistance and each one had intercourse without her consent. |
||
The friends were charged with rape, and Morgan was charged with [[aiding and abetting]] the others to commit rape. He was not charged with rape because of [[spousal privilege]].<ref name=anu>{{cite web|url=http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/trape.html|work=Sexual Offences|publisher=ANU College of Law|accessdate=2 November 2011|title=Sexual Offences}}</ref> |
The friends were charged with rape, and Morgan was charged with [[aiding and abetting]] the others to commit rape. He was not charged with rape because of [[spousal privilege]].<ref name=anu>{{cite web|url=http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/trape.html |work=Sexual Offences |publisher=ANU College of Law |accessdate=2 November 2011 |title=Sexual Offences |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208072148/http://law.anu.edu.au:80/criminet/trape.html |archivedate=8 February 2012 |df= }}</ref> |
||
==Trial== |
==Trial== |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==House of Lords== |
==House of Lords== |
||
The House of Lords found honest, mistaken belief in the victim's consent need not be reasonable to rebut a charge of rape.<ref name="house of lords">{{cite web|last=Power|first=Helen|title=Sexual offences, strict liability and mistaken belief: B v DPP in the House of Lords|url=http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue2/power2.html|publisher=Web Journal of Current Legal Issues|accessdate=2 November 2011}}</ref> |
The House of Lords found honest, mistaken belief in the victim's consent need not be reasonable to rebut a charge of rape.<ref name="house of lords">{{cite web|last=Power |first=Helen |title=Sexual offences, strict liability and mistaken belief: B v DPP in the House of Lords |url=http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue2/power2.html |publisher=Web Journal of Current Legal Issues |accessdate=2 November 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414224934/http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue2/power2.html |archivedate=14 April 2012 |df= }}</ref> |
||
While the defendants won their legal argument, their convictions were nonetheless upheld. The judges found that no reasonable jury would have ever acquitted the defendants even had they been correctly directed by the trial judge as to the law. |
While the defendants won their legal argument, their convictions were nonetheless upheld. The judges found that no reasonable jury would have ever acquitted the defendants even had they been correctly directed by the trial judge as to the law. |
||
Revision as of 20:52, 4 December 2016
| DPP v. Morgan | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation | [1975] 2 WLR 913; [1976] AC 182 |
| Keywords | |
| Mistaken belief | |
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182, [1975] 2 WLR 913, [1975] 2 All ER 347, 61 Cr App R 136, [1975] Crim LR 717 was a 1975 decision of the House of Lords which decided that an honest belief by a man that a woman with whom he was engaged with sexual intercourse was consenting was a defence to rape, irrespective of whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds. It remained the law until the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Case history
Morgan invited three friends to his house, and invited them to have sexual intercourse with his wife. The friends later claimed that Morgan told them that his wife was "kinky", and would feign protest. The four men forcibly overcame the wife's resistance and each one had intercourse without her consent.
The friends were charged with rape, and Morgan was charged with aiding and abetting the others to commit rape. He was not charged with rape because of spousal privilege.[1]
Trial
At trial the three men pleaded that they had honestly believed that Mrs Morgan had consented to sexual intercourse.
The trial judge directed the jury that the defendants would not be guilty of rape if they honestly believed that the woman was consenting and that belief in consent was reasonably held.
The jury convicted all four and they appealed.
House of Lords
The House of Lords found honest, mistaken belief in the victim's consent need not be reasonable to rebut a charge of rape.[2]
While the defendants won their legal argument, their convictions were nonetheless upheld. The judges found that no reasonable jury would have ever acquitted the defendants even had they been correctly directed by the trial judge as to the law.
Criticism
Notwithstanding the conviction of the defendants, feminist academic lawyer Professor Jennifer Temkin[3] infamously referred to the decision in DPP v Morgan as a "rapist's charter".[4]
References
- ^ "Sexual Offences". Sexual Offences. ANU College of Law. Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ Power, Helen. "Sexual offences, strict liability and mistaken belief: B v DPP in the House of Lords". Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Archived from the original on 14 April 2012. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ "Professor Jennifer Temkin". The City Law School. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
- ^ Sara Hinchliffe. "Rape Law Reform in Britain". Retrieved 16 September 2015.