{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CB DPP v Morgan - Was it a defense against rape that the 3...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
D.P.P (Department of public prosecution) v. Morgan 2 All E.R. 3665 (1975) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: 4 men were out drinking. They tried to find a women to have sex with but couldn’t find anyone. So the married one of the group said that they could all have sex with his wife, and told them the wife likes to struggle, but that’s the way she likes it. Because the kinky- ness turns her on. He (may) have led them to believe his wife would consent to this. So they take her from her single bed, into another room, and they all had a turn to have sexual intercourse with her (including husband). Wife did not consent to them. There was a mistake in facts. Issue: Broad Question: Narrow Question:
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Was it a defense, against rape, that the 3 men though they had the consent of the wife, but in reality, they didn’t. Holding: No, because Rule: People should not be convicted (to the full extent of the crime) when they do not have the Mens Rae of doing such crimes. (does not apply to strict liability crimes). Rational: It is unreasonable to convict someone of a crime if they honestly believe that a fact was true, even though it wasn’t. They did not have the Mens rea of the evil intent. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Lord Simon Concern is that the policy of the law in this case seems off because it does not hold a fair balance between victim and accused....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online