Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Khan

[1990] CAR 29

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 14:31 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Khan

 Ds attempted to rape V. Against their conviction they appealed, saying that their attitude to consent had been “couldn’t care les”, which didn’t fulfil intent requirements of s.1 Criminal Attempts Act. CA dismissed their appeal saying that intent, inthis scenario, was only necessary regarding intent to penetrate and that recklessness or a “couldn’t care less” attitude as to consent was sufficient. CA say the only difference with actual rape is that penetration didn’t occur and that in intending rape, all that need be proved is that Ds intended to do something fulfilling the requirement of rape (i.e. that they intended to penetrate while intentionally or recklessly disregarding V’s non-consent). 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Criminal Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Criminal Law Notes

Criminal Law Notes >>