Regian v. Morgan

House of Lords (1976)

Plaintiff: Regina

Defendant: Morgan and his three companions; Morgan and the other three defendants spent a night together. The three defendants after drinking had sexual intercourse with Morgan's wife with Morgan's permission. The three defendants told the jury that Morgan had told them that whenever his wife struggles in sexual intercourse, it means that she is liking it. The defendants argued that they did not have the intent to commit rape because they honestly believed that when Mrs. Morgan was struggling with them, she was actually getting excited by the sexual intercourse. The trial judge informed the jury that an honest belief of the defendants has to be reasonable in order to be considered a good defense, and the jury, by following these instructions, convicted the defendants for rape.

Issue: Does the honest belief of the defendants that the victim has consented needs to be reasonable?

Holding: No

Key Facts: Rape is not a strict liability crime and mens rea is needed in order to convict a person.

Legal Reasoning: Mens rea is required in rape and it is the duty of the prosecutor to show the jury that mens rea actually existed. The prosecutor can use reasonable argument to support his view but reasonableness is not a requirement in the rape conviction. If the jury believes that the defendants held an honest belief that they had the consent of the victim, this belief does not have to be objectively reasonable and an honest subjective belief will do.

**The defendants were still convicted.