Hubbry Logo
R v RR v RMain
Open search
R v R
Community hub
R v R
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
R v R
R v R
R v R
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

R v R[a]
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided23 October 1991
Citation(1992) 94 Cr App R 216, [1991] 3 WLR 767, [1991] UKHL 12, [1992] Fam Law 108, (1991) 155 JP 989, [1992] 1 FLR 217, [1992] 1 AC 599, [1992] AC 599, [1991] 4 All ER 481, (1991) 155 JPN 752, [1992] Crim LR 207
Case history
Prior actionNone
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Keith, Lord Brandon, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner and Lord Lowry
Case opinions
Decision byLord Keith
ConcurrenceLord Brandon, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner, Lord Lowry
Keywords
marital rape

R v R [1991] UKHL 12[a] is a House of Lords judgement in which R was convicted of attempting to rape his wife but appealed his conviction on the grounds of a marital rape exemption whereby R claimed a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife as his wife had given consent to sexual intercourse through the contract of marriage which she could not withdraw. The court considered the common law defence of marital rape and declared that it did not exist in English law.[1][2]

History

[edit]

R married his wife in 1985; however, the marriage became strained. In 1989, at the wife's parents' house, while her parents were out, R broke in and attempted to force her to have sexual intercourse with him against her will while also strangling her. The police arrested R and charged him with attempted rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The jury at Leicester Crown Court found him guilty on both counts. R appealed the case with regards to his attempted rape conviction to the House of Lords based on the exemption of marital rape.[1][2]

[edit]

The exemption of marital rape came about in English common law from Sir Matthew Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown where he declared "the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up to her husband, consent which she cannot retract".[3][4] This was held as a binding precedent up until R v R, and it was distinguished in R v Kowalski[5] that the marital defence only applied to the crime of rape (which was then defined as vaginal sex only) and not to acts such as fellatio.[6]

Judgement

[edit]

Lord Keith of Kinkel gave the per curiam decision. In it, he considered a previous case in Scottish law where in S v HM Advocate[2][7] it was held that there was no marital rape exemption in Scottish law, even if the married couple was cohabiting. In that case, Lord Emslie questioned if the exemption was an accurate representation of life in modern Scotland. Lord Keith stated in the judgement that there was no reason why this couldn't apply in English law. He stated that following the Matrimonial Causes Acts, the definition of marriage had moved from Hale's time from where the wife was subservient to her husband into a contract of equals.[1][8]

The House of Lords also considered the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 if the word "unlawful" in the definition of unlawful rape included marital rape. The court determined that it did as the word unlawful was surplusage as all rape was considered illegal under the act. With regard to the marital rape exemption, Lord Keith declared that marital rape exemption was a "common law fiction" and ruled that "in modern times the supposed marital exemption in rape forms no part of the law of England."[1][9] Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner and Lord Lowry all unanimously agreed with Lord Keith's ratio decidendi. As such R's appeal was dismissed and his conviction upheld.[2]

Impact

[edit]

The case was reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights under article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights in SW and CR v UK on the grounds that because the law was wrong, then SW and CR argued they had been punished without breaking any law in a violation of article 7. However, the Court rejected this appeal on the grounds that R v R was a natural foreseeable evolution of law and that even if the common law marital rape exemption existed or their victims not been their wives, then the appellants would still have been guilty of rape under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.[10][11]

The judgement in R v R was supported by the Law Commission and was later confirmed in statute law by an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which provided a statutory definition of rape (now replaced with section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003).[12]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

R v R

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
R v R UKHL 12 is a landmark ruling by the House of Lords that held a husband may be criminally liable for raping his wife, overturning centuries-old common law doctrine implying irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse upon marriage. The decision arose from the attempted rape of a separated wife by her husband, who had unlawfully entered her parents' home in 1989 and sought non-consensual intercourse despite her explicit refusal. At trial in the Crown Court, the judge convicted the defendant of attempted rape and assault but rejected a defense submission that no such offense existed within marriage, sentencing him to three years' imprisonment for the former and eighteen months concurrently for the latter. The appellant challenged his conviction through the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal, prompting a further appeal to the on the grounds that the , as articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in the , barred prosecution for . In a unanimous judgment delivered by Lord Keith of Kinkel, the Lords declared Hale's proposition anachronistic and incompatible with contemporary standards of justice and , emphasizing that spousal consent must be ongoing and revocable rather than perpetual. This ruling effectively abolished the marital exemption from rape liability, recognizing that does not negate the need for voluntary consent in sexual acts. The case's significance lies in its judicial reinterpretation of to align with evolving societal views on and violence within intimate relationships, prompting parliamentary clarification via amendments to the and Public Order Act 1994 that statutorily confirmed the exemption's removal. Critics have noted the decision's reliance on policy-driven evolution over strict precedent, viewing it as an instance of judicial in an area traditionally reserved for , though it has since been upheld and extended in subsequent . R v R thus marked a pivotal shift in , affirming that legal protections against apply equally within .

Origins of the Marital Exemption Doctrine

The marital exemption doctrine in English stemmed from the principle that constituted an irrevocable by the to sexual intercourse with her , thereby precluding the possibility of . This view was prominently articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in his posthumously published treatise Historia Placitorum Coronae (1736), where he stated: "the cannot be guilty of a committed by himself upon his lawful , for by their mutual matrimonial and the hath given up herself in this kind unto her , which she cannot retract." Hale's formulation established the doctrinal foundation, drawing on earlier and contractual interpretations of that emphasized perpetual submission within the marital union. The doctrine intertwined with the broader concept of , under which a married woman's separate legal existence was subsumed by her husband's upon , rendering husband and wife a single legal entity. Sir William Blackstone reinforced this unity in his influential Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), explaining that "by , the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." While Blackstone did not explicitly address , his exposition of provided the structural rationale for Hale's exemption, implying that acts within marriage fell under the husband's authority without independent criminal liability for the wife. This exemption maintained continuity through subsequent centuries, as evidenced in 19th-century judicial decisions. In R v Clarence () 22 QBD 23, the court upheld the principle, ruling that a wife's marital extended to intercourse unless the couple had separated or obtained a , thereby affirming Hale's irrevocable absent formal dissolution of the union. The decision explicitly invoked Hale's authority, illustrating the doctrine's entrenchment in prior to 20th-century reforms.

Pre-1991 Developments in Rape Law

The doctrine exempting husbands from rape liability, articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in the as implying irrevocable upon , persisted through 19th- and 20th-century statutory reforms that expanded 's scope beyond marital contexts. The marked a significant broadening of protections by raising the age of from 13 to 16, classifying carnal knowledge of girls under 13 as felony , and creating offenses for and abduction of women for immoral purposes, yet it neither defined rape statutorily nor disturbed the marital exemption, which continued to shield intraspousal intercourse from criminalization. The further codified in Section 1 as a for a man to have "unlawful with a " without her , consolidating prior fragmented laws and emphasizing lack of as central, but courts upheld the view that "unlawful" excluded valid marriages, rendering spousal non- legally irrelevant. This statutory framework advanced consent-based reasoning for non-marital offenses while entrenching the exemption, as evidenced by consistent judicial refusals to prosecute husbands even amid evident force. By the 1970s, empirical shifts—including divorce rates doubling to over 100,000 annually after the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and the proliferation of women's refuges from 1971 onward—elevated public and activist scrutiny of marital coercion, with the and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 providing civil remedies for battered wives but omitting criminal sanctions for non-consensual intercourse. Feminist organizations, drawing on first-hand shelter testimonies of within , campaigned to reframe as revocable and ongoing, challenging Hale's as incompatible with observed patterns of where physical separation or judicial separation orders already limited conjugal . Legislative bids to explicitly criminalize repeatedly stalled in the ; a 1983 private member's bill to extend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to spouses advanced only to introduction before lapsing, mirroring broader resistance prioritizing marital sanctity over individualized consent claims. The Law Commission's 1990 working paper " Within Marriage" critiqued the exemption as outdated, citing its erosion in jurisdictions like and recommending parity with non-marital , but parliamentary inaction—despite aligned reforms like anonymizing complainants—left resolution to the amid growing doctrinal strain between statutory consent evolution and relic.

Facts of the Case

The complainant and appellant married on 11 August 1984 and had one son born in 1985. The couple experienced intermittent separations, including a two-week period in November 1987, before the wife departed the matrimonial home with their son on 21 October 1989 to reside with her parents owing to persistent matrimonial difficulties; she had consulted solicitors and prepared to petition for . On 12 November 1989, the appellant forced entry into the house of the 's parents, where she was living, and attempted against her explicit refusal and physical resistance. During the encounter, he assaulted her by applying pressure to her neck with both hands, causing actual . The promptly reported to , resulting in the appellant's charges for attempted under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 and . The appellant's defense contended that the subsisting precluded criminal liability for or attempted .

Trial and Initial Conviction

In 1990, at Gloucester Crown Court, the defendant—referred to as R—was tried on an charging him with and against his estranged wife. The couple had married in 1978 but separated in early 1989, with the wife moving to her parents' home and obtaining a prohibiting the husband from molesting or approaching her. On 28 February 1989, R unlawfully entered the parents' residence, where his wife was staying, and attempted by force; she resisted, leading to the charges. R advanced the defense that English , as stated by Sir Matthew Hale in the , precluded a from being convicted of raping his , positing that implied irrevocable to at the 's demand. The trial judge rejected this argument, holding that any implied from was rebuttable and could be withdrawn, particularly given the separation, the wife's relocation, and the , which evidenced a lack of ongoing . The evidentiary emphasis was on the wife's explicit resistance during the incident and the prior judicial order as indicators rebutting perpetual marital . Upon the judge's ruling on the legal point, R pleaded guilty to attempted and . On 30 July 1990, he was convicted and sentenced to three years' for the attempted rape offense and eighteen months' (to run concurrently) for the assault. R sought leave to appeal the conviction forthwith, grounding the application in the trial judge's alleged misapplication of Hale's doctrine as binding precedent exempting husbands from such liability absent formal divorce or separation decree.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for attempted rape on 14 March 1991. Lord Lane CJ, delivering the judgment, examined the marital exemption doctrine, tracing its origins to Sir Matthew Hale's 1736 assertion that a wife's consent to marital intercourse is irrevocable, implying perpetual availability regardless of her objections or circumstances. Lord Lane characterized the doctrine as "an anachronistic fiction," stating: "The idea that a wife by consents in advance to her having with her whatever her state of health or however proper her objections... is no longer acceptable." The reasoned that evolving social norms, viewing as a of equals rather than a submission of the , rendered the exemption obsolete; moreover, separation with clear intent to terminate revoked any . It interpreted the term "unlawful" in section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 as surplusage, not intended to preserve the exemption, and held that prosecuting a for did not create a new offense but removed an outdated barrier. By dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the trial judge's ruling that a could be criminally liable for attempting to his estranged , affirming the and three-year sentence. The court certified under section 33 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 that the decision involved a point of of general public importance—specifically, whether a is criminally liable for his —and granted leave for to the . This procedural step, enabled by the , allowed for higher scrutiny given the doctrine's historical entrenchment and broader implications for .

House of Lords Hearing

The appeal in R v R reached the , where it was heard on 1 July 1991 by a panel of five Law Lords: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner, and Lord Lowry. The appellant, represented by counsel, contended that the doctrine established by Sir Matthew Hale in the —positing an irrevocable to upon —remained binding under principles of stare decisis, and that matrimonial vows implied ongoing spousal , rendering the incompatible with . The , in response, submitted that evolving societal norms of equality between spouses and legislative developments, such as the recognition of and , had rendered the historical exemption anachronistic, with in being revocable at any time rather than perpetual. These arguments were presented without dissent among the Lords during the proceedings, reflecting the focused legal debate on the doctrine's viability in contemporary law. The delivered its unanimous judgment on 23 October 1991, reported as 1 AC 599, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Court of Appeal's decision.

Judgement and Reasoning

Core Ruling

In R v R UKHL 12, the unanimously ruled on 23 October 1991 that a is criminally liable for or attempting to his , thereby abolishing the marital exemption doctrine. This overturned the longstanding principle articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, which presumed an irrevocable consent to upon . The decision specified that any implied consent arising from marriage is not perpetual or irrevocable; it may be withdrawn and rebutted by factors such as marital separation, explicit refusal of intercourse, or other evidence demonstrating lack of ongoing consent. The Lords affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted rape and dismissed the appeal, confirming the application of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to spousal relations without exemption.

Judicial Rationale and Overruling of Precedent

The invoked the Practice Statement of 1966 to depart from the set by Sir Matthew Hale's 1736 assertion that implies a wife's irrevocable to , deeming it an anachronistic rule unfit for retention in light of evolving and social conditions. Lord Keith of Kinkel, in the leading judgment, described Hale's doctrine as reflective of 17th-century patriarchal assumptions where a wife's status subordinated her to her husband, a proposition now "quite unacceptable" given the profound transformation in women's legal and social position. The Lords balanced stare decisis against the common law's capacity for organic development, concluding that rigid adherence would hinder justice by perpetuating a incompatible with modern principles of individual autonomy and marital equality. Central to the rationale was the rejection of perpetual consent as a one-time, irrevocable grant upon , reconceptualized instead as an ongoing, revocable permission subject to withdrawal at any point, even post-wedding vows. Lord Keith highlighted legislative reforms underscoring this shift, particularly the , which introduced provisions and eroded the historical view of as indissoluble, thereby affirming a wife's right to refuse sexual demands without legal impunity for non-compliance. This evolution aligned the with broader equality norms, treating as a of equals rather than a hierarchical implying bodily submission. By overruling Hale's rule, the Lords prioritized causal alignment between and contemporary realities over historical continuity, asserting that the common law's adaptability demands excision of outdated exemptions that fail to safeguard personal amid recognized changes in roles and relational dynamics. The decision thus marked a principled departure, grounded in the judiciary's duty to ensure rules serve current societal needs rather than entrench vestiges of prior eras.

Criticisms and Alternative Perspectives

In tradition, was regarded as establishing an irrevocable to between spouses, rendering the notion of incompatible with the marital . This perspective, articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in his 1736 treatise Historia Placitorum Coronae, posited that "the cannot be guilty of a committed by himself upon his lawful , for by their mutual and the hath given up herself in this kind unto her , which she cannot retract." Hale's doctrine, influential in English for over two centuries, viewed the —particularly phrases such as "to have and to hold" and "to love, honor, and obey"—as implying mutual sexual availability, revocable only through or separation. This contractarian framework drew from principles, emphasizing the union's permanence to foster familial stability and procreation. Philosophically, proponents rooted this implied consent in biblical precedents, such as 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, which instructs spouses to fulfill their "marital duty" to one another and warns against depriving each other of sexual relations except by mutual agreement for temporary spiritual purposes, lest arise. Traditional jurists influenced by Hale argued that state intervention via prosecutions would undermine marital unity by injecting adversarial criminal processes into the domestic sphere, potentially destabilizing families and eroding the sacrament's sanctity. Prior to 1991, this exemption meant no prosecutions for occurred in the UK, reflecting the rarity of such accusations, as the act was not legally cognizable and culturally viewed as outside the bounds of criminality. Following the R v R ruling, some conservative scholars and commentators decried the overturning of Hale's precedent as an erosion of marriage's foundational covenant, arguing it transformed a private relational into a perpetually renegotiable model susceptible to subjective reinterpretation. They contended that equating spousal relations with stranger assaults ignored the voluntary, enduring nature of marital commitment, potentially incentivizing post-hoc criminalization amid relational discord while disregarding historical safeguards against frivolous claims. This critique framed the shift as prioritizing individual autonomy over communal and institutional marital norms derived from long-standing legal and religious traditions.

Concerns Regarding State Intervention in Marriage

Critics of the R v R ruling contend that it exemplifies judicial overreach by extending criminal sanctions into the intimate sphere of , a domain historically insulated from state coercion through the doctrine of articulated by Sir Matthew Hale in 1736. This doctrine, rooted in the marital contract's mutual vows of fidelity and companionship, presupposed self-regulation within the family unit via cultural, religious, and social norms rather than prosecutorial oversight. By overruling Hale's precedent, the effectively legislated a new offense, disregarding ; as noted in analyses of the decision, Parliament had deliberately excluded from criminalization in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, fearing it would undermine marital stability and invite misuse. The shifts the of from relational dynamics—where withdrawal might be negotiated privately or through —to discretionary state enforcement, heightening risks of subjective allegations amid acrimonious separations. Pre-R v R, the absence of prosecutions reflected effective cultural deterrents against spousal , with marital disputes often resolved without litigation; post-ruling, even as overall charge rates remain low (2.6% of reported offenses leading to charges/ as of March 2024), the framework enables claims leveraged in proceedings, exacerbating adversarial dynamics. This transition aligns with broader causal patterns where state intrusion supplants informal norms, correlating with increased caseloads, which averaged 45 weeks resolution time by September 2022 amid heightened disputes. Traditionalist and right-leaning commentators, echoing 1976 parliamentary debates, warn that such precedents erode marital immunities, paving the way for further dilutions of contractual obligations, akin to the 1971 expansion of under the Matrimonial Causes Act, which facilitated unilateral dissolution without proving fault. By prioritizing individual autonomy over institutional permanence, the ruling risks destabilizing structures, as applications (e.g., convictions for pre-1991 acts in cases like R v Crooks) demonstrate courts' willingness to override established expectations, potentially fostering legal cynicism and relational fragility. These concerns highlight a in judicial evolution toward expansive state roles, often advanced by activist benches despite legislative restraint.

Empirical and Practical Critiques

Despite the criminalization of following R v R in , prosecution and conviction rates for such offenses have remained notably low, reflecting persistent evidentiary challenges in intimate partner cases. data indicate that overall convictions hovered around 5-6% of reported cases in the 1990s and early 2000s, with marital or domestic violence-related rapes facing even steeper attrition due to difficulties in proving lack of without corroborative beyond victim testimony. research from the period highlighted that cases involving known perpetrators, including spouses, often collapsed at early stages owing to insufficient forensic or reluctance, contributing to under 10% successful prosecutions in flagged adult referrals by the decade's end. False allegation risks have also drawn in empirical assessments of sexual offense reporting post-R v R. A 1990s study estimated false reports in cases at 2-10%, with higher rates in domestic contexts where motives like or custody disputes could incentivize , complicating genuine prosecutions. These figures underscore practical tensions, as heightened of marital claims has led to no-criming of reports perceived as unreliable, potentially deterring victims while exposing accused partners to prolonged investigations without resolution. Unintended consequences include familial deterrence and sustained underreporting, as the elevated proof burdens—requiring demonstration of non-consent in ongoing relationships—may discourage disclosures amid fears of disruption or disbelief. Studies post-ruling found no clear causal uptick in reporting attributable to R v R, with surveys indicating persistent victim hesitation due to evidentiary hurdles rather than empowerment effects. Claims of broad societal benefits, such as reduced tolerance for intra-marital , lack robust longitudinal linking the ruling to decreased incidence, as self-reported in British Crime Surveys showed minimal shifts in the immediate aftermath. The affirmed the UK's approach in SW v United Kingdom (1995), ruling that retroactive application of the R v R principle did not violate foreseeability under Article 7, thereby endorsing criminalization without prescribing procedural reforms. However, ongoing debates highlight practical expansions like affirmative consent models, which some analyses argue exacerbate prosecution challenges by shifting burdens without addressing core evidentiary gaps in marital settings, potentially inflating unsubstantiated claims.

Impact and Legacy

The ruling in R v R UKHL 12 immediately upheld the appellant's conviction for attempted of his estranged wife, establishing that spousal immunity from prosecution no longer applied and enabling courts to treat such offenses as standard non-consensual acts without deference to . This doctrinal change removed the presumption of irrevocable upon , allowing of lack of within to be assessed on the same evidentiary standards as in non-marital cases, without automatic inadmissibility of marital communications solely due to the spousal relationship. In response, codified the abolition of the marital exemption through section 142 of the and Public Order Act 1994, which amended section 1 of the by expanding the definition of to encompass non-consensual vaginal or anal penetration explicitly, irrespective of spousal status, and by eliminating the term "unlawful" that had implicitly preserved the exemption. This statutory clarification, effective from 1994, ensured the judicial overruling could not be easily reversed and standardized rape prosecutions across relational contexts domestically. The ruling also prompted alignment in sentencing practices, with courts applying equivalent guidelines to marital rape as to stranger rape, rejecting leniency based on presumed relational consent; for instance, the original appellant received a three-year sentence concurrent with eighteen months for assault, reflecting post-ruling equivalence in penal severity. Subsequent affirmations, such as in R v C EWCA Crim 292, reinforced these shifts by dismissing retroactivity challenges to pre-1991 marital rape convictions tried after the decision, confirming no abuse of process or fair trial violations in applying the updated doctrine to historical acts within marriage.

Broader Societal and Familial Effects

The ruling in R v R coincided with a peak in divorce rates, which reached 165,018 divorces in in 1993—a crude rate of 13 per 1,000 married people—before declining steadily to around 80,000 annually by the . This trajectory, however, aligns more closely with prior reforms like the Divorce Reform Act 1969 introducing no-fault grounds and rising female labor participation than with the 1991 decision, as rates had been climbing since the amid broader cultural and economic shifts eroding marital permanence. Attributing causation to the overruling of marital immunities remains speculative, given the absence of direct econometric studies isolating its effects from concurrent trends like delayed and normalization. Police-recorded domestic abuse offences, including sexual elements, surged post-1991, from approximately 300,000 incidents in the early 1990s to 889,918 by the year ending March 2023, a 14.4% increase from pre-pandemic levels. Victim surveys indicate stable underlying prevalence—around 5% of adults experiencing domestic abuse annually—but heightened reporting reflects legal affirmations of spousal autonomy, enabling prosecutions previously barred and bolstering access to protective orders and support. Proponents credit this with advancing victim safeguards, deterring non-consensual acts by affirming marriage does not imply irrevocable consent, though low conviction rates for marital rape (fewer than 1% of reported rapes leading to charges historically) suggest practical enforcement challenges persist. Familially, the decision reinforced contractual views of , prioritizing individual agency over traditional presumptions of unity, which some observers argue has intensified adversarial proceedings by allowing sexual non-consent claims to influence custody and asset divisions. While enhancing protections against genuine , sparse data on allegation veracity fuels critiques of potential strategic deployment in separations, where unproven assertions can sway outcomes amid broader declines in rates (from 404,283 ceremonies in 1991 to 222,034 in 2019). This shift correlates with evolving gender dynamics, empowering women against coercion yet contributing to perceptions of as fragile, with cohort risks falling for post-1990s unions possibly due to selectivity rather than strengthened bonds.

Influence on International Jurisprudence

The ruling in R v R prompted legislative reforms in , where states such as and Victoria amended rape laws in 1991 and 1992 to explicitly abolish the marital immunity doctrine, aligning with the UK's overruling of . In , which had already removed the exemption via 1983 amendments to , the decision reinforced judicial interpretations emphasizing consent in spousal relationships, as seen in subsequent cases applying evolving standards of sexual autonomy. These changes reflected a broader shift in common law jurisdictions toward recognizing as prosecutable, departing from historical immunities rooted in . The affirmed the ruling's international legitimacy in S.W. v. United Kingdom and C.R. v. United Kingdom (both 1995), holding that the retrospective conviction of spouses for acts predating R v R did not violate Article 7's prohibition on unforeseeable criminalization, given the foreseeable evolution of norms on consent and . This validation extended the decision's influence beyond domestic law, endorsing dynamic judicial overruling as compatible with standards and encouraging similar reforms elsewhere. In contrast, resistance persists in jurisdictions influenced by civil or religious legal traditions; for instance, India's has deferred ruling on petitions challenging the marital exception in of the since 2017, with hearings ongoing as of October 2024 amid arguments over marital privacy and cultural norms. Similarly, several Islamic states, including , , and , maintain exemptions excluding spousal acts from rape definitions as of 2025, prioritizing traditional interpretations of marriage contracts over consent-based reforms. These holdouts highlight tensions between R v R's emphasis on individual autonomy and systems embedding perpetual consent in matrimony.

References

  1. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd66c
  2. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/r-v-r-1991
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/sites/www.law.cornell.edu/files/women-and-justice/R-v-R.pdf
  4. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b899540f0b62826a04382/0167.pdf
  5. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/english-legal-system/rape-inside-marriage-law.php
  6. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=occasional_papers
  7. https://ir.nbu.ac.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/34f01803-9fc2-4cc4-9f20-410fe741acc5/content
  8. https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/ls261/chapter/ch-4-1-william-blackstone-on-coverture-1765/
  9. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1610&context=clevstlrev
  10. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-clarence.php
  11. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/sexualbehaviour19thcentury/
  12. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228746/0167.pdf
  13. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/249/Happy-families-History-family-policy.pdf
  14. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/stories/how-the-first-women-refuge-enacted-change/
  15. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/6/15/the-long-road-to-criminalising-rape-within-marriage
  16. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1983-03-29/debates/aee19ec7-26e1-4732-b851-e6fea70492f8/MaritalRape
  17. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-law-rape-within-marriage
  18. https://www.iclr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/media/vote/1971-1995/RvR_ac1992-1-599.pdf
  19. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd70b
  20. https://lawtutor.co.uk/r-v-r
  21. https://lawyerz.com/api/caselaw/R.%2520v.%2520R.%2520%281991%29%2520-%2520United%2520Kingdom?sessionID=lytd4aoa-3f2fa233-444b-4e87-a5c4-0277499c4be4
  22. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-v-r-1991-792746197
  23. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd707
  24. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-r-1992.php
  25. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html
  26. https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/common-law-marital-rape-exemption
  27. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/5-traditional-marriage-vows-what-they-mean-and-why-theyre-still-important/
  28. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&version=NIV
  29. https://www.womensaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/23.-Supporting-Resources-An-Historical-Perspective.pdf
  30. https://www.ubplj.org/index.php/dlj/article/view/306/335
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/marriage-is-no-protection-for-crime-coverture-sex-and-marital-rape-in-eighteenthcentury-england/4FDB5DA504A43E946B3AEF534EFBE7AD
  32. https://www.studocu.vn/vn/document/truong-dai-hoc-luat-thanh-pho-ho-chi-minh/legal-english/marital-rape-and-the-law-analyzing-judicial-overreach-in-r-v-r-306/141784057
  33. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/rape-levels-of-prosecutions/
  34. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements
  35. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/292.html
  36. https://cwasu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/different_systems_03_web2.pdf
  37. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8d51ed915d6969f45ae8/crimestats.pdf
  38. https://xyonline.net/content/false-allegations-sexual-and-domestic-violence-facts
  39. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193636/anonymity-rape-research-report.pdf
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238713283_Home_Office_Research_Study_293_A_gap_or_a_chasm_Attrition_in_reported_rape_cases
  41. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/836m48.htm
  42. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57965
  43. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1477370815571949
  44. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3037117
  45. https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/78.-Sanket-Keshav.pdf
  46. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-c-2004.php
  47. https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
  48. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023
  49. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020
  50. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&context=gjicl
  51. https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/MF-2311-What-is-the-divorce-rate.pdf
  52. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1699006/37_3_7.pdf
  53. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3037131
  54. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/marital-rape-supreme-court-legal-issues-explained/article68731580.ece
  55. https://manassa.news/en/news/27020
  56. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/24/moroccan-court-overturns-landmark-marital-rape-conviction
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.