... It also meant that sexual intercourse without consent within marriage was legal, as sex was seen as being part of being married. It was also legal for a man to use reasonable force on his wife to have sexual intercourse. The crime of rape is act specific, so the Actus Reus of rape has to be the sexual intercourse without consent. The Sexual Offences Act (1956) states that the state of mind of the defendant must be that: "At the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it." (Sexual Offences Act (1956) Section 1[1] b). This means that the Mens Rea of rape can be either intent or recklessness. In this case the type of recklessness in question is Cunningham recklessness, which is where the person foresees the risk, but goes ahead anyway. In DPP V Morgan (1976) ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now