R v Howard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Crim J1102-1 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 969/65 |
| Date | 02 November 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Crim J1102-1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Ashworth
and
Mr. Justice Widgery
No. 969/65
THE APPLICANT was not represented
This applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court last April of attempted rape and attempted burglary, and was sentenced to Borstal training on each count concurrent. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.
on the night of the 18th-19th February somebody went into the home of a Mr. Richardson at Ealing; his six year old daughter Lucinda was indecently assaulted, being found by a doctor who examined her the next morning to be red, scratched and swollen in the area of her private parts. The doctor formed the view that interference had been by hand. There were stains of semen on the bed and pubic and head hairs and other articles. That was on the 18th-19th February.
On the night of the 26th February, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson were in bed when they heard someone attempting to climb in by an upstairs window; the Police were called and after a short chase this applicant was arrested. He told the Police: "I have just got off a bus from Shepherds Bush". Later at the Police Station he denied being anywhere near the house on the earlier date, the 19th February. It was found that the semen, the saliva, the head and public hairs were of the same group and identical with those of the applicant, and it was also found that a button which was in Lucinda' bed was identical with a button missing from a shirt which belonged to this applicant.
There was really ample evidence here upon which the Jury could convict, and the only possible point in the summing-up which calls for comment is in regard to the Judge's direction in regard to attempted rape. At page 24 of the summing-up he said this: "The first charge is attempted rape and it alleges that on the 19th February he attempted to have sexual intercourse with this girl of six without her consent. The prosecution have to prove that he did attempt to have actual sexual intercourse; that is to say, the actual penetration of the female organ by the male organ". Then he goes on;. "The question of consent does not come into it with a child of six because,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Malone
...the judge in his summing-up to misdirect the jury on the issue of consent. 20 Mr Germain's argument is that the decisions of this court in R -v—Howard 50 Cr App R 56 and R -v—Lang are still good law and should have been followed and applied by the judge. These decisions have not been supers......
-
R v Lang
...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 R. v. Howard 1966 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 13, the Court of Criminal Appeal had to consider the case of a girl under sixteen. Lord Parker, Chief Justice (at p......
- R v Doyle
-
D (A Child)
...in question: it had already been established that a child below the age of 16 could consent to sexual intercourse so that it was not rape ( R v Howard [1966] 1 WLR 13) or to being taken away so that it was not kidnapping ( R v D [1984] AC 778). Parental rights and authority existed for th......
-
A Victim's Mistaken Consent in Rape
...The Mobilio test would. it is submitted. provide more satisfactory guidance than thestatements of Lord Parker CJ in R v Howard (1965]3 All ER 684. at p 685'that [the victim's]understanding and knowledge was such that she was not in a position to decide whether toconsent or resist'.2'l Parag......