R v R
English marital rape trial / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about R v R?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
R v R [1991] UKHL 12[lower-alpha 1] 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.
R v R | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Decided | 23 October 1991 |
Citation(s) |
|
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | None |
Subsequent action(s) | SW and CR v UK |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Lord Keith |
Concurrence | Lord Brandon, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner, Lord Lowry |
Keywords | |
marital rape |
In 1990, the defendant, referred to in the judgment only as R to protect the identity of the victim, had been convicted of attempting to rape his wife. He appealed the conviction on the grounds of a purported marital rape exemption under common law. R claimed that it was not legally possible for a husband to rape his wife, as the wife had given irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband through the contract of marriage, which she could not subsequently withdraw.
Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords upheld the rape conviction, declaring that a marital rape exemption did not exist in English law[1] and that therefore, it is possible for a husband to rape his wife.