Law Weblog

A woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk

Tuesday 27 March 2007 at 9:09 pm | In News | Post Comment

R v Bree [2007] CA
[Consent – drunken consent is still consent]
D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.

Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).

Not guilty
Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.