Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recklessness and rape

  • Published:
The Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. R. v. Morgan |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913; see A. Kenny,Freewill and Responsibility, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, 57–63; E. M. Curley, “Excusing Rape”, 5Philosophy and Public Affairs (1976), 325.

  2. Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, Cmnd. 6352 (1975); see J. C. Smith, “The Helibron Report”, |1976|Criminal Law Review 97.

  3. |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913, 931.

  4. Ibid, |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913 at 921.

  5. Ibid, |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913 at 922.

  6. Ibid, |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913 at 921.

  7. Ibid, |1975| 2 W.L.R. 913 at 951.

  8. See R. Cross, “Centenary Reflections on Prince’s Case”, 91Law Quarterly Review (1975), 540; G. H. Gordon,The Criminal Law of Scotland, 2nd ed., Edinburgh, W. Green & Son Ltd., 1978, ch. 9.31; J. C. Smith & B. Hogan,Criminal Law, 4th ed., London, Butterworths, 1978, 70–71.

  9. It was clear that neither the courts nor the jury believed the defendants’ story inMorgan; but seeR. v. Cogan |1975| 2 All E. R. 1059.

  10. See Cross,supra note 9 R. Cross, “Centenary Reflections on Prince’s Case”, 91Law Quarterly Review (1975), 540; Smith & Hogan,supra note 9 at 70–71; G. Williams,Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens & Sons, 1978, 76.

  11. |1975| 2 W.L.R. 947,per Lord Edmund Da vies.

  12. Sec Kenny, at 61.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See R. A. Duff, “Intention, Mens Rea and the Law Commission Report”, |1980|Criminal Law Review 154.

  14. See Archbold,Pleading, Evidence, and Practice in Criminal Cases, 38th ed., London, Sweet and Maxwell. 1973, para. 2871. Scots law builds the idea of “overcoming the woman’s will” into the definition of rape: see Gordon,supra note 9 G. H. Gordon,The Criminal Law of Scotland, 2nd ed., Edinburgh, W. Green & Son Ltd., 1978 at ch. 33.05-11.

  15. Law Commission,Report on the Mental Element in Crime (1978), para. 65: their definition accords with what may fairly be called the current orthodoxy; see Smith & Hogan,supra note 9 at 52–53; Williams,supra note 11 G. Williams,Textbook of Criminal Law London, Stevens, & Sons, 1978, 76. at 68–80; R. A. Duff, “Recklessness”, [1980]Criminal Law Review 282.

  16. See Kenny, supra note 1 A. Kenny,Freewill and Responsibility, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, at 62–63, 98.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See G. Williams,Criminal Law: The General Part, 2nd ed., London, Stevens & Sons, 1961, ss. 54–55; J. C. Smith, “The Guilty Mind in the Criminal Law”, 76Law Quarterly Review (1960), 78.

    Google Scholar 

  18. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 926, 927,per Lord Cross; 937,per Lord Hailsham; 947,per Lord Edmund Davies; see also 958, per Lord Fraser.

  19. Kenny,supra note 1 A. Kenny,Freewill and Responsibility, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978 at 61–63, seems to accept that this is the meaning ofMorgan and that this provides an adequate definition of themens rea of rape.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thus we should resist the suggestion that rape should be abolished as a separate offence and be treated simply as assault: see the Sexual Law Reform Society’s Working Party Report, [1975]Criminal Law Review 328.

  21. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 959,per Lord Fraser.

  22. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 937,per Lord Hailsham.

  23. See Duff,supra note 16: R. A. Duff, “Recklessness”, [1980]Criminal Law Review 282. if the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee (14th Report,Offences against the Person, 1980, para. 157) are accepted, 1 might in such a case be guilty of “causing injury recklessly”; my suggestion is that this is unreasonably harsh.

  24. See Gordon,supra note 9 R. Cross, “Centenary Reflections on Prince’s Case”, 91Law Quarterly Review (1975), 540; at ch. 7.48.

  25. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 926; see Curley,supra note 1. E. M. Curley, “Excusing Rape”, 5Philosophy and Public Affairs (1976), 325.

  26. See [1975] 2 W.L.R. 932, 937, per Lord Hailsham.

  27. See Duff,supra note 16, R. A. Duff, “Recklessness”, [1980]Criminal Law Review 282. for a more general version of this argument.

  28. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 921–943.

  29. Ibid. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 921–943. at 921.

  30. Thus it is a pity that rape has come to be defined as intercourse “without her consent”, rather than “against her will”; see Smith & Hogan,supra note 9 at 404; K. L. Koh, “Consent and Responsibility in Sexual Offences”, [1968]Criminal Law Review 81.

  31. For some American Judicial approval of this kind of attitude, seeThe Guardian, 4 June 1975,2, and 6 July 1977, 13.

  32. See Gordon,supra note 9 R. Cross, “Centenary Reflections on Prince’s Case”, 91Law Quarterly Review (1975), 540; at ch 7.46–74, and ch. 9.32, where he notes that in Scots law a defence of “unreasonable error” may be rejected “even accepting the genuineness of the error, because of the reckless way in which it was arrived at, or the blind selfishness in which it was persisted in, being grounded only in the accused’s blind prejudice or violent passion” (at 344). 1 have offered a parallel argument to show that a man should be guilty of murder if he causes death by an action which is intended to cause serious injury, even if he does not at the time of his assault realise that there is a risk that it will cause his victim’s death, in R. A. Duff, “Implied and Constructive Malice in Murder”, 95Law Quarterly Review (1979), 418; compare now the Criminal Law Revision Committee’s recommendations in theirReport on Offences against the Person (14th Report, 1980), paras. 17-31.

  33. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 931; Gordon,supra note 9 G. H. Gordon,The Criminal Law of Scotland, 2nd ed., Edinburg, W. Green & Son Ltd., 1978, at ch. 9.27–31.

  34. [1975] 2 W.L.R. 929, 931,per Lord Hailsham.

  35. A man might more plausibly and reasonably fail to realise that the woman is mentally defective; see Smith & Hogan,supra note 9 J. C. Smith & Hogan,Criminal Law, 4th ed., London, Butterworths, 1978, at 404. But it would surely anyway be more rational to treat such intercourse separately from rape, under s.7 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stirling, UK

    R. A. Duff (Lecturer in Philosophy)

Authors
  1. R. A. Duff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duff, R.A. Recklessness and rape. Liverpool Law Rev 3, 49–64 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185297

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185297

Keywords

Search

Navigation