R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767 House of Lords

The defendant was charged with the attempted rape of his wife. At the time of the offence the couple had separated although no formal legal separation existed and neither party had partitioned for a divorce.

Held:

The House of Lords overturned the matrimonial exception to rape. His conviction for rape was upheld.


Lord Keith

"It may be taken that the proposition was generally regarded as an accurate statement of the common law of England. The common law is, however, capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments. Hale's proposition reflected the state of affairs in these respects at the time it was enunciated. Since then the status of women, and particularly of married women, has changed out of all recognition in various ways which are very familiar and upon which it is unnecessary to go into detail. Apart from property matters and the availability of matrimonial remedies, one of the most important changes is that marriage is in modern times regarded as a partnership of equals, and no longer one in which the wife must be the subservient chattel of the husband. Hale's proposition involves that by marriage a wife gives her irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband under all circumstances and irrespective of the state of her health or how she happens to be feeling at the time. In modern times any reasonable person must regard that conception as quite unacceptable."

Back to lecture outline on judicial precedent