Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


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). 

R v Khan crops up in following areas of law