Defendants attempted to rape Victim.
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, in this 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 needs be proven is that Defendants intended to do something fulfilling the requirement of rape (i.e. that they intended to penetrate while intentionally or recklessly disregarding Victim’s non-consent).
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Criminal law | Offences Against The Person Notes Real Notes (28 pages) |
Criminal Law | Sexual Offences Notes (9 pages) |
Criminal Law | Sexual Offences Short Notes (11 pages) |