DPP v Morgan

Last updated

DPP v Morgan
Wolverhampton Princes Square.JPG
Wolverhampton, where the defendants were drinking prior to the gang rape of Morgan's wife.
Court House of Lords
Full case nameDPP v Morgan, DPP v McDonald, DPP v McLarty, DPP v Parker
Citation(s)
  • [1975] UKHL 3
  • [1976] AC 182
  • [1975] 2 WLR 913
  • [1975] 2 All ER 347
  • 61 Cr App R 136
  • [1975] Crim LR 717
Transcript(s) BAILII
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
Keywords
Rape, mistaken belief

DPP v Morgan [1975] UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords which decided that an honest belief by a man that a woman with whom he was engaged with sexual intercourse was consenting was a defence to rape, irrespective of whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds. This case was superseded by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which came into force on 1 May 2004.

Contents

Case history

William Anthony Morgan was a thirty-seven-year-old non-commissioned officer in the RAF. On the night of 15 August 1973 he was drinking in Wolverhampton with three junior colleagues. He invited the three of them to his house, ostensibly in order to have sexual intercourse with his wife, Daphne. The friends later claimed that Morgan told them that his wife was "kinky", and would feign protest (Morgan himself denied this). At the time the wife was sleeping separately from her husband, and was sleeping with her 11-year-old son in his bed when the defendants came into the house. The four men forcibly overcame the wife's resistance, dragged her from her son's bed, and each one had forcible intercourse without her consent whilst the others held her. She initially screamed for her son and his older brother to call the police, but in her evidence, she said the men clamped her nose and mouth with their hands to choke her until she submitted. After the attack, Morgan himself had sexual intercourse with his wife. She then went directly to Cosford hospital where she reported to staff that she had been raped. [1]

The men were charged with rape, and Morgan was charged with aiding and abetting the others to commit rape. He was not charged with rape because at the time it was believed that a husband had an absolute defence in law by virtue of being married to the victim. [2] [3]

Trial

At trial the three men pleaded that they had honestly believed that Mrs Morgan had consented to sexual intercourse.

They were tried at Stafford Crown Court at a trial presided over by Mr Justice Kenneth Jones.

The trial judge directed the jury that the defendants would not be guilty of rape if they honestly believed that the woman was consenting and that belief in consent was reasonably held. On 24 January 1974 the jury convicted all four and they appealed.

House of Lords

The House of Lords held that an honest but mistaken belief that the victim was consenting would provide a complete defence; the basis for that belief did not need to be objectively reasonable so long as the jury were satisfied that the defendant honestly believed it. [4]

While the defendants won their legal argument, their convictions were nonetheless upheld. The judges found that no reasonable jury would have ever acquitted the defendants even had they been correctly directed by the trial judge as to the law, and so applying "the proviso" they upheld the convictions.

Criticism

Notwithstanding the conviction of the defendants, the decision has attracted widespread criticism. Dolly Alexander has pointed out that in most other areas of English criminal law, mistaken belief must be held on a reasonable basis to found a defence. [5] The feminist legal scholar Jennifer Temkin [6] famously referred to the decision in DPP v Morgan as a "rapist's charter". [7]

Subsequent developments

In 2004 the law was changed pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 such that belief on the part of the defendant that the victim consented must be "reasonable". [8]

Related Research Articles

Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. It is a form of sexual violence, which includes child sexual abuse, groping, rape. or a drug facilitated sexual assault), or the torture of the person in a sexual manner.

<i>R v Park</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Park [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, is a Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the mistaken belief defence – i.e. that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that he had consent to engage in sexual relations with the complainant – and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to sexual assault.

<i>Woolmington v DPP</i> House of Lords law case

Woolmington v DPP[1935] UKHL 1 is a landmark House of Lords case, where the presumption of innocence was re-consolidated.

A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jamieson v HM Advocate</span>

Jamieson v HM Advocate is a notable legal case which established a precedent in Scotland which held that a man does not commit rape where he honestly, albeit unreasonably, believes his victim is consenting. This was a criminal case decided by the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal case was heard before a panel of three judges with the Lord Justice-General as president, with Lord Allanbridge and Lord Cowie. The case is reported at 1994 SLT 537.

In criminal law, consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It only applied to murder. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but thereby replaced by the superseding—and more precisely worded—loss of control.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

<i>Pappajohn v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Pappajohn v R, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal defence of mistake of fact.

Rape is a type of sexual assault initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, under threat or manipulation, by impersonation, or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland is a Maryland state court case relating to the ability to withdraw sexual consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

<i>R v Collins</i> English court case involving trespass, mistaken identity, and a sexual assault charge

R v Collins 1973 QB 100 was a unanimous appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which examined the meaning of "enters as a trespasser" in the definition of burglary, where the separate legal questions of an invitation based on mistaken identity and extent of entry at the point of that beckoning or invitation to enter were in question.

<i>R v R</i> English marital rape trial

R v R[1991] UKHL 12 is a decision in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law, it is a crime for a husband to rape his wife.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator deceives the victim into participating in a sexual act that they would otherwise not consent to. Deception can occur in many forms, such as false statements or actions.

<i>R v Evans and McDonald</i>

R v Evans and McDonald was the prosecution of two footballers, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald, who were accused of the rape of a woman. On 20 April 2012, Evans was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. McDonald was acquitted. Several people were later fined after naming the woman on Twitter and other social media websites.

Rape laws vary across the United States jurisdictions. However, rape is federally defined for statistical purposes as:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

References

  1. "MENS REA IN RAPE : AN ANALYSIS OF "REG. V. MORGAN" AND SECTIONS 375 AND 79 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE".
  2. "Sexual Offences". ANU College of Law. Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  3. In 1991 it was decided that being married to the victim was no defence to rape under English law ( R v R [1991] UKHL 12), but that case was decided 17 years after DPP v Morgan.
  4. Power, Helen. "Sexual offences, strict liability and mistaken belief: B v DPP in the House of Lords". Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Archived from the original on 14 April 2012. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  5. Alexander, Dolly. "Twenty Years of Morgan: A Criticism of the Subjectivist View of Mens Rea and Rape in Great Britain". Pace International Law Review. 7 (1): 207–246. Retrieved 3 September 2017.[ permanent dead link ]
  6. "Professor Jennifer Temkin". The City Law School . Retrieved 16 September 2015.
  7. Sara Hinchliffe. "Rape Law Reform in Britain". Archived from the original on 27 August 2003. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
  8. "Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 1(1)(c)". HMSO. Retrieved 17 November 2019.