RSS Feed
May 31st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda A MAN who argued he could not be guilty of raping his wife because no such offence existed in 1963 has lost his appeal to the High Court.
The South Australian man was charged in 2010 with the rape in 1963 of his wife, with whom he lived at the time.
While rape was an offence in South Australia in 1963, it was not defined in legislation.
A judge of the District Court of South Australia stayed the trial of the man and reserved, for determination by the Full Court, the question of whether the rape of one spouse by another was an offence in 1963. A majority of the Full Court found that the man could be guilty of raping his wife in 1963.
The man appealed to the High Court, arguing that the common law was, as stated by Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife because, by marriage, she gave her irrevocable consent to intercourse.
In 1991, the High Court held that, if this notion was ever a part of the common law of Australia, it was no longer so by 1991.
Yesterday the High Court held that if the marital exemption to rape was ever a part of the common law of Australia, it had ceased to be so by 1935, when South Australia’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act – the Act under which the man was charged – was enacted.
The majority found that legislation about divorce, property and voting had removed any basis for the acceptance of Mr Hale’s proposition as part of the common law that applied in Australia in 1963.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
