Clause 1 - Rape
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I suppose this is the cat-among-the-pigeons amendment. The next element of clause 1 deals with a change that will be brought about—when linked to clauses 76 and 77—concerning whether there is to be a subjective or objective test of reasonableness of consent in rape cases. I thought that asking to remove the word ''reasonably'' in clause 1(1)(c) would trigger a debate on that subject. If one wished to return to the old test, one would have to do more than that, but the amendment is a device to enable the Committee to consider that issue, and no more than that.
There are further amendments, which I shall leave for my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) to expand upon, that would provide an intermediate stage between a subjective and objective test. That would provide some mitigation to the change to an objective test.
This is a major issue. We have always taken the view in this country that a person is guilty only if he has a guilty mind—although there are some offences that do not fall into that category. If someone accused of an offence of rape reasonably believes that another person has consented, then—however unreasonable that belief might appear to someone else—he is not guilty if someone decides that he did reasonably hold that belief. That has given rise to enormous problems. Those of us who attended the presentation on Operation Sapphire last night witnessed an exposé from the Metropolitan police. There is a widespread belief that there are many instances in which defendants are being acquitted as a result of the jury's difficulties relating to the issue.
Oddly enough, I do not subscribe to that latter point. I am wholly unconvinced that the change from a subjective to an objective test that we are to bring about will make a huge difference. I have always taken the view that juries, in deciding whether someone had a reasonable belief of consent, almost invariably apply their own standards. As a result, it is their view of what is reasonable or not that is likely to apply, notwithstanding anything that the judge may say by way of a direction. That said, however, there are powerful and persuasive arguments for moving to an objective test.
Vera Baird rose—