Reasonable Belief in Consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
| Author | Natalie Wortley |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5580-77.3.184 |
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
whether those facts amounted to a good reason; an objective view of the
subjectively viewed facts.
The Court of Appeal determined that self-defence and ‘good reason’
could not be compared due to the differences in legal principles and the
burden of proof. While this is logically correct, the analogy is under-
standable. Self-defence firstly requires necessary use of force, judged on
the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be (R v Beckford
[1987] 3 All ER 425): a subjective viewpoint. Thereafter, the court must
be satisfied that the force used was reasonable, requiring consideration
of the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be to determine
whether the force used was objectively reasonable; an objective view of
the subjectively viewed facts. Despite the differences in burden of proof,
the approach remains the same. Nevertheless, the clarification is wel-
come. It seems that fear of attack, imminent or otherwise, can constitute
a ‘good reason’, but it is for the defendant to prove on the balance of
probabilities, and the question should be objectively determined by the
jury, taking account of all the facts of the case, including matters
subjective to the defendant.
Joanne Clough
Reasonable Belief in Consent under the Sexual Offences
Act 2003
R v B [2013] EWCA Crim 3
Keywords
Rape; Consent; Reasonable belief; Mental illness; Mental
disorder
B was convicted of two counts of common assault and two counts of
rape upon his partner and a further minor offence of criminal damage to
her house. There was evidence that B had been suffering from either
paranoid schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder at the time of the
offences. The main issue on appeal was the trial judge’s direction to the
jury that B’s mental illness was irrelevant to whether he reasonably
believed the complainant was consenting to sexual intercourse.
B and the complainant (C) had been in a relationship since 2004. B
had previously pleaded guilty to three offences of common assault upon
C, for which he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment in
March 2010. The convictions in the instant case arose out of events that
took place in July and August 2010. On 16 July 2010, B assaulted C by
spitting at her after seeing her talking to her (male) neighbour. On the
evening of 4 August 2010, B presented C with a mixture consisting of
cold canned peas and crumbled leaf from an apple tree and insisted that
she eat it. When C began to remove the pieces of leaf, B assaulted C by
grabbing her finger and made her eat the mixture. A short time later, B
informed C that he wanted to have sex. At trial, C gave evidence that
that she did not want to but submitted because B insisted. C accepted
184
Reasonable Belief in Consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
that she removed her own clothing prior to intercourse taking place.
Later that night, B again wanted sexual intercourse. C maintained that
she had said ‘no’, but B insisted. Again she removed her own nightdress
before submitting to intercourse.
B was interviewed by the police and denied the first offence of
...
To continue reading
Request your trial