Case Note for RvR Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Case Note for RvR - Essay Example t could constitute â€Å"unlawful sexual intercourse†, as defined under Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 (4) The wife’s marital consent to intercourse had not been revoked, either by a Court order or by an agreement between the parties. As a result, the question that arose in these circumstances was whether, despite her refusal to consent, the wife could have been held to have consented by the fact of the marriage. 4. The trial judge’s directions to the Jury stated that there appeared to be ample grounds to indicate that consent to sexual intercourse had been withdrawn by an agreement between the parties. Firstly, the parties were not cohabiting. Secondly, the husband’s act in phoning his wife and telling her he intended to see about a divorce constituted implicit consent. On this basis, the prosecution could prove a charge of rape or attempted rape against the husband. 5. The first fact is not material to the disputed issue of rape. The second fact, i.e, defendant had mentioned his intent to seek a divorce, is a relevant and material fact, because it revokes by implied mutual agreement, the consent to sexual intercourse that is imposed by marriage and spelt out under Hale’s common law rule. Hence, it establishes that the husband’s act constituted rape. It also establishes that he is not eligible for immunity under Hale’s rule. The third fact is also material and relevant, because it establishes the second ground of bodily assault. 6. The marital exemption itself refers to the common law rule wherein upon marriage, an assumption is made that the wife consents to sexual intercourse with her husband. This presumption may however be rebutted by evidence that the wife did not in fact, consent. To enforce this rebuttal, some exceptions have been established, when a wife can say no, such as when her health is in danger or when the man’s actions constitute assault. These and other exceptions have been spelt out by case precedent