Also known as: R. v R (A Husband), R (Rape: Marital Exemption), Re
Court: House of Lords
Judgment Date: 23 October 1991
Where Reported: [1992] 1 A.C. 599; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 767; [1991] 4 All E.R. 481; [1991] 10 WLUK 315
Legal Issues in R. v R
R. v R (A Husband) is a landmark case in the field of criminal law that deals with the issue of marital rape. The case involved a husband who was charged with raping his wife.
The central question in R. v R (A Husband) before the court was whether a husband could be held criminally liable for raping his wife.
Judgment in R. v R (A Husband)
The case was heard in the House of Lords, and the court unanimously held that a husband could be held criminally liable for raping his wife.
The court rejected the long-standing common law principle that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife.
The Reason for the Decision in R. v R (A Husband)
The court based its decision on the principle of equality and the evolving understanding of consent in sexual relationships.
Lord Keith, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that the common law principle that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife was based on outdated notions of marriage and the subordinate status of women.
The court recognised that marriage does not give a husband an absolute right to sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent.
Lord Keith stated that the concept of marital rape is a contradiction in terms, as it implies that a wife is obligated to provide sexual services to her husband regardless of her own wishes.
The court also considered the international legal framework and the changing societal attitudes towards marital rape.
It noted that many countries had already recognised marital rape as a criminal offence, and the United Kingdom was obligated to comply with its international human rights obligations.
The court rejected the argument that the criminalisation of marital rape would undermine the institution of marriage.
Lord Keith stated that the law should protect the rights and autonomy of individuals within a marriage, and criminalising marital rape was a necessary step towards achieving gender equality and respecting the dignity of women.
Conclusion
The judgment in R. v R (A Husband) marked a significant shift in the legal recognition of marital rape.
The court held that a husband could be held criminally liable for raping his wife, rejecting the outdated common law principle that exempted husbands from such liability.
The decision recognised the importance of consent and equality within marital relationships.
R. v R (A Husband) reflects the evolving understanding of sexual autonomy and the recognition of women’s rights within the institution of marriage.
It highlights the need to challenge traditional gender roles and power dynamics that perpetuate violence and inequality.
The judgment in R. v R has had a profound impact on the legal landscape, leading to changes in legislation and the recognition of marital rape as a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.
It has contributed to the broader movement towards gender equality and the protection of women’s rights.
However, it is important to note that the criminalisation of marital rape is not the end of the struggle for justice and equality.
Efforts must continue to raise awareness, provide support for survivors, and challenge societal attitudes that perpetuate violence and discrimination.
The judgment in R. v R serves as a significant milestone in this ongoing journey towards a more just and equal society.
