Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'R [2016] IESC 64 (11 November 2016)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'R [2016] IESC 64 (11 November 2016)

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the mental element of rape were adequate and in conformity with the law. The judge correctly instructed the jury that only his directions on the law were to be followed, not those of counsel. The law requires that the accused must honestly believe the woman was actually consenting, not merely that she might be. The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter for the jury to consider, but an unreasonable or irrational belief is not a defence. The appeal was dismissed as the grounds advanced did not fall within those on which leave to appeal was granted, and in any event, the directions given...

Citation
[2016] IESC 64
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: C O’R
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Mental Element (mens Rea), Consent, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Mental Element (mens Rea) Consent Jury Directions Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

C O’R

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the mental element of rape excuse a situation where on unreasonable and irrational grounds a man genuinely believes that a woman has consented to sexual intercourse, whereas in fact she has not so consented?
  2. 2 Within the definition of rape, is there a requirement in law for a man to ascertain prior to sexual intercourse that: the woman is a) capable of consenting to the sexual intercourse; and b) that as a matter of fact she does so consent?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the mental element of rape were adequate and in conformity with the law. The judge correctly instructed the jury that only his directions on the law were to be followed, not those of counsel. The law requires that the accused must honestly believe the woman was actually consenting, not merely that she might be. The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter for the jury to consider, but an unreasonable or irrational belief is not a defence. The appeal was dismissed as the grounds advanced did not fall within those on which leave to appeal was granted, and in any event, the directions given...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed