- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R v R
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant married the Complainant in 1984. After periods of difficulty and short separation, the Complainant left the matrimonial home in October 1989, informing the Appellant of her intention to obtain a divorce. On the evening of 12 November 1989 the Appellant forced entry into the residence where the Complainant was living and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her against her will, assaulting her in the process. He was arrested, admitted the conduct, and was later charged with rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
At trial before Judge [Last Name] in The Crown Court on 30 July 1990, defence counsel submitted that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife. The judge rejected that contention, holding that any implied marital consent can be withdrawn. The Appellant thereupon pleaded guilty to attempted rape and to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, receiving consecutive prison sentences.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) asserting that the judge had erred in law by finding that a husband could rape his wife in the absence of court order or express agreement revoking consent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 14 March 1991 but certified a point of law of general public importance and granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is a husband criminally liable for raping his wife?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Relied on the historic common-law proposition, originating with Sir Matthew Hale, that a wife’s consent to sexual intercourse is irrevocably implied by marriage.
- Contended that section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 preserved that marital exemption because the subsection speaks of “unlawful” intercourse, allegedly meaning “outside marriage.”
- Submitted that, absent a decree of divorce or formal court order terminating cohabitation, the offence of rape could not be committed within marriage.
Respondent’s Arguments (Director of Public Prosecutions)
- Argued that the marital exemption is obsolete and inconsistent with contemporary conceptions of marriage as a partnership of equals.
- Maintained that section 1(1) of the 1976 Act does not freeze the common law and that the word “unlawful” is mere surplusage; sexual intercourse without consent is inherently unlawful, whether or not the parties are married.
- Invited the House of Lords to declare that the common-law fiction of irrevocable consent no longer forms part of English law.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Reg. v. Clarence (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 23 | Early acceptance of Hale’s marital exemption | Noted that later judges in Clarence expressed reservations, foreshadowing modern change |
| Rex v. Clarke [1949] 2 All E.R. 448 | Husband may be liable for rape where a court order ends cohabitation | Cited as precedent undermining the idea of an absolute exemption |
| Reg. v. Miller [1954] 2 Q.B. 282 | Assault charge possible even if rape charge barred by marital status | Illustrated illogical outcomes produced by the exemption |
| Reg. v. O’Brien [1974] 3 All E.R. 663 | Decree nisi revokes implied consent | Treated as another judicially created exception |
| Reg. v. Steele (1976) 65 Cr. App. R. 22 | Undertaking not to molest revokes consent | Shown as gradual erosion of the exemption |
| Reg. v. Roberts [1986] Crim L.R. 188 | Formal separation agreement revokes consent | Demonstrated piecemeal dismantling of Hale’s rule |
| Reg. v. Sharples [1990] Crim L.R. 198 | Family protection order insufficient to revoke consent (contrary view) | Highlighted inconsistent lower-court approaches |
| S. v. H.M. Advocate 1989 S.L.T. 469 | Scottish authority abolishing marital exemption | Relied on as persuasive reasoning supporting abolition in England |
| Reg. v. C. (Rape; Marital Exemption) [1991] 1 All E.R. 755 | First English decision expressly rejecting the exemption | Approved by the House as a correct statement of modern law |
| Reg. v. J. (Rape; Marital Exemption) [1991] 1 All E.R. 759 | Contrary view that 1976 Act preserved exemption | House rejected this construction of the statute |
| Reg. v. Chapman [1959] 1 Q.B. 100 | Meaning of “unlawful” as “illicit” in sexual-offence statutes | Distinguished; word “unlawful” treated as surplusage in the 1976 Act |
| McMonagle v. Westminster City Council [1990] 2 A.C. 716 | Example of treating “unlawfully” as surplusage | Supported the statutory interpretation adopted |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Delivering the leading speech, Judge Keith traced the origin of the marital exemption to Sir Matthew Hale’s 17th-century commentary, noting that no earlier authority supported it and that societal changes have rendered the fiction anachronistic. The House observed that modern marriage is a partnership of equals; a doctrine implying irrevocable consent is incompatible with that reality.
The Court examined extensive English case law, demonstrating that over time judges had already carved numerous exceptions (separation orders, decrees nisi, undertakings, formal agreements). These piecemeal exceptions exposed the illogical nature of the underlying rule and showed its progressive erosion.
The principal statutory argument concerned section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. The Appellant contended that “unlawful” intercourse means intercourse outside marriage, preserving the exemption. The House rejected this view, holding that:
- “Unlawful” is surplusage in the subsection; the offence turns on absence of consent, not marital status.
- Adopting the Appellant’s construction would implicitly abolish the long-recognised common-law exceptions—a result Parliament could not have intended without express words.
- Precedent such as Reg. v. Chapman, dealing with a different statutory context, did not control the meaning in the 1976 Act.
Finally, echoing Scottish authority in S. v. H.M. Advocate, the House concluded that the common-law marital exemption is unsupported by principle or modern policy. Declaring its abolition did not create a new offence but merely removed an outdated “legal fiction.”
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed; the order of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) affirmed.
By answering the certified question in the affirmative, the House of Lords held that a husband can be criminally liable for raping his wife. The decision eliminates the common-law marital exemption in England and Wales, aligning the law with contemporary views of marriage and personal autonomy. No new statutory offence was created, but the ruling has landmark significance: all non-consensual intercourse within marriage is now prosecutable as rape, subject to the same elements and defences as any other rape prosecution.
Alert