DPP v Morgan
1976 · AC 182
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Morgan told three fellow airmen that his wife would resist sexual intercourse as a way of increasing her pleasure, and invited them to have intercourse with her. She did not consent. They were of rape. He was convicted of aiding and abetting. They said they believed she consented.
- Issue
- Must a belief in consent be reasonable?
- Held
- The House of Lords held that an honest belief in consent negatives the . Reasonableness is not a legal requirement. It is evidence of whether the belief was really held. The convictions were nevertheless upheld on the facts, under the proviso.
- Principle
- Where the offence requires mens rea, a mistake that means the accused did not have that mens rea need not be reasonable.
- Why it matters
- The rule is not confined to rape. Kimber and Smith apply it more widely. It does not apply to an offence of .
Words and Latin in this note
- Strict liability
- An offence in which the prosecution need not prove a guilty mind as to one or more elements. The act must still be proved, and it must still be voluntary. The presumption is that mens rea is required, unless the statute or its subject matter displaces it. Open the note.
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.