preview

HMA V. Barbour: The Definition Of Rape

Decent Essays

As the most prominent charge to come here, rape was originally defined by Hume as: “the knowledge of the woman’s person forcibly and against her will”. Rape was then defined in the current edition of Gordon as: “the carnal knowledge of a female by a male person obtained by overcoming her will”. However, both definitions have been long replaced by the current definition set out in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which differs quite significantly from Hume’s and Gordon’s definitions, to one of a more practical approach. In section one of the 2009 Act it defines the charge of rape as the penetration by an individual’s penis, of the vagina, anus or mouth without the consent of the second individual and without any knowledge that the second individual is consenting or is reckless to whether consent has taken place. Hume’s old law definition was gender specific and required force for the crime of rape to be …show more content…

Another key point from the scenario which contributes to the mens rea of the crime - must either be without any reasonable belief that the other individual is consenting or be reckless and indifferent as to whether consent has been established - is the essence that the victim is said to have clearly struggled to get the accused off her. But as stated in: HMA v Barbour: “important matter is not the amount of resistance put up but whether the woman remains an unwilling partner throughout.” Therefore, to commit the charge of rape, it is not necessary for there to be any force present and a key case to prove this is the old Scots case against William Fraser, where by the victim believed she was having sex with her husband meaning that there was no force necessary because force is in the essence a consequence of lack of consent. Force helps the prosecution prove that there was a lack of consent but force is not necessary for guilt to be

Get Access