R v Olugboja [1982]
Share
R v Olugboja [1982] QB 320, [1981] 3 WLR 585 established a significant legal principle, highlighting that submission, defined as a lack of physical resistance, does not necessarily equate to consent, particularly in cases of sexual intercourse.
Olugboja, the defendant, asked the victim to take off her trousers. Despite the absence of a direct threat and no visible physical struggle or outcry, the judge directed the jury to consider whether the victim had indeed consented to the sexual intercourse. The context of the case was crucial, as it unfolded in the aftermath of the victim's friend being raped by Olugboja's friend.
Olugboja, convicted of rape, subsequently appealed against the direction, asserting that there was an absence of evidence establishing lack of consent. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Dunn LJ delivering the court's rationale.
Dunn LJ emphasised that the loss of consent is not exclusively confined to situations involving force, fear, or fraud. He articulated a fundamental principle, stating that while every consent involves a degree of submission, mere submission does not necessarily imply consent. In cases where threats do not involve violence or the fear of violence, Dunn LJ directed the jury to focus on the state of mind of the victim immediately before the act. This includes considering all circumstances, especially events leading up to the act and the victim's reactions that indicate the impact on her mental state.
In summary, this case established the critical distinction between submission and consent, underscoring that the absence of physical resistance does not automatically imply the presence of consent, particularly in cases of sexual intercourse. The court emphasised the need to consider the victim's state of mind and reactions in evaluating consent, especially in situations where threats do not involve violence or the fear of it.
Olugboja, the defendant, asked the victim to take off her trousers. Despite the absence of a direct threat and no visible physical struggle or outcry, the judge directed the jury to consider whether the victim had indeed consented to the sexual intercourse. The context of the case was crucial, as it unfolded in the aftermath of the victim's friend being raped by Olugboja's friend.
Olugboja, convicted of rape, subsequently appealed against the direction, asserting that there was an absence of evidence establishing lack of consent. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Dunn LJ delivering the court's rationale.
Dunn LJ emphasised that the loss of consent is not exclusively confined to situations involving force, fear, or fraud. He articulated a fundamental principle, stating that while every consent involves a degree of submission, mere submission does not necessarily imply consent. In cases where threats do not involve violence or the fear of violence, Dunn LJ directed the jury to focus on the state of mind of the victim immediately before the act. This includes considering all circumstances, especially events leading up to the act and the victim's reactions that indicate the impact on her mental state.
In summary, this case established the critical distinction between submission and consent, underscoring that the absence of physical resistance does not automatically imply the presence of consent, particularly in cases of sexual intercourse. The court emphasised the need to consider the victim's state of mind and reactions in evaluating consent, especially in situations where threats do not involve violence or the fear of it.
