The appellant appealed his conviction on the count of rape for allegedly having sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent when she was too drunk to put up any physical resistance. The Court upheld the conviction and the sentence on the grounds that the complainant's evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the appellant was reckless as to the question of the complainant's consent, even if he did not know at the time that she was not consenting.
In R v. R, the House of Lords determined that spousal rape is not exempt from criminal punishment. The defendant, R, was convicted of attempting to rape his wife. He appealed the conviction pursuant to the marital rape exemption under common law, arguing it was not legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords upheld the rape conviction, holding that no marital rape exemption exists under English law.
The defendant appeals his conviction for attempted rape on the grounds that a husband cannot rape his wife. The House of Lords overturned the old common law rule that marriage automatically gave consent for sexual intercourse and held that a husband could be convicted of rape or attempted rape of his wife where she withdrew her consent to intercourse.
S was employed by Bull as a temporary secretary and was subsequently given a permanent placement responsible to the Marketing Manager, R. S resigned on the ground that she found working with him intolerable as R allegedly sexually harassed her. S never confronted S nor made any identifiable protests about his behavior with the exception of complaint she made about him telling dirty jokes to colleagues in her presence. But she had made complaints to her mother and colleagues at work.
The appellant was separated from his wife, who was living in her parents’ house. The appellant broke into the house where his wife was residing and attempted to rape her. The question posed to the House of Lords was whether a wife has impliedly consented to sexual intercourse through the force of marriage. The House of Lords held that there is no supposed marital exemption in rape in the common law. The House of Lords decision is applicable in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
The defendant was convicted of rape and appealed on the grounds that there could only be an absence of consent if the victim's mind had been overborne by fear of death or duress. The victim only began to struggle in earnest after penetration had occurred.
The defendants recruited nine men from the Middle East and the Indian continent between 2004 and 2008 to work in a restaurant owned by one of the defendants.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 establishes the legal framework for the UK’s policy of relocating certain migrants to Rwanda, affirming Rwanda as a "safe country" and limiting legal challenges to removals on safety grounds. The Act mandates that decision-makers, including courts and immigration officials, treat Rwanda as safe, disapplies relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, and restricts judicial review of removal decisions.
Constance Ragan Salgado, a British citizen, moved to Colombia with her husband, a Colombian, and gave birth to a son. Salgado attempted to obtain British nationality for her son, but the British Consul in Bogotá stated that British nationality passed only though the paternal line. Although the British Nationality Act of 1981 amended British law to confer equal rights to men and women, Salgado’s son did not qualify because he was over 18.
The Sex Discrimination Order (Northern Ireland) 1976, as amended, prohibits discrimination (direct and indirect), including harassment, on the ground of sex, in the employment, education, and provision of goods and services sectors. Its amendments include the extension of protections to gender reassignment (Part II, sections 4A and 4B).
