logo

English Criminal Law- R vs. R Case

   

Added on  2020-02-03

8 Pages2872 Words58 Views
LAW JUDGEMENT: R vs. R

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1THE JUDGEMENT....................................................................................................................1IMPACT ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS...........................................................................4CONLUSION..................................................................................................................................5REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTIONThe case of R v. R1 is a landmark judgement which has turned the law in relation tomarital rape under Common law. The precise question which was considered by the court in thiscase was that whether under English Criminal Law it is possible for a husband to commit thecrime of rape with his own wife. The case of was instituted in the year 1990, wherein thedefendant was sued on the grounds of the alleged marital rape, which was further appealed onthe grounds of the exemption of marital rape provided under Common Law. It was argued by thedefendant that a husband cannot be made liable for committing the crime of rape with his ownwife, as it is not legally possible. It was further argued by him that the wife by entering into arelation of marriage with him, had given an irrevocable consent in respect to sexual intercoursewith the husband. Hence, the same cannot be withdrawn by her subsequently.2 This case wasfirst decided by the Court of Appeal and then eventually by the House of Lords, wherein it wasunanimously held that the exemption of marital rape cannot be be considered valid under EnglishLaw. Therefore, the courts while determining the decision of this case, analyzed the legal issueof analyzing the validity of legal doctrine in accordance to which men cannot legally rape theirwives. This doctrine was completely against the evolved society, and was based on the opinionof Hall, Jerome, who had opined that:“...husband can never be guilty of committing the crime of rape upon his own wife, ifthey are a lawfully wedded couple. The rationale behind the same is that marriage implies amutual consent from both the parties”3the justification which was provided by the author in support of this statement, said that aa wife by entering into a contractual relation of marriage is impliedly consenting to give her bodyto the partner and in addition, is also giving a consent to sexual intercourse with her husband,which she cannot retract. THE JUDGEMENTThe House of Lords after considering the facts of the case and the prevailing law on thematter, decided to overturn the exception of marital rape under Common law and upheld the1R v. R [1991] UKHL 12. 2Randall, Melanie. "Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: Consent, resistance, and victimblaming."Canadian Journal of Women and the Law22.2 (2010): 397-433.3Hall, Jerome.General principles of criminal law. (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2010).1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
R v R [1992] 1 AC 599
|8
|2435
|365

Cases that Changed Legislation
|8
|2368
|23

Papadimitropoulos v The Queen: Legal Significance of the Judgment
|6
|1005
|155

Law for Social Work: Case Analysis of R v R
|9
|2402
|277

Family Law or Personal Law Case Study 2022
|15
|3795
|20

Unconscionable Conduct in Louth v Diprose (1992) - Business Law
|6
|977
|131