Since then the status of women, and particularly of married women, has changed out of all recognition in various ways which are very familiar and upon which it is unnecessary to go into detail.ne of the most important changes is that marriage is in modern times regarded as a partnership of equals, and no longer one in which the wife must be the subservient chattel of the husband. Hale's proposition reflected the state of affairs in these respects at the time it was enunciated. The common law is, however, capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments. It may be taken that the proposition was generally regarded as an accurate statement of the common law of England. The first such case was R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, All ER Rep 133, to which I shall refer later. In the first edition of Archbold A Summary of the Law Relative to Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases (1822) p 259 it was stated, after a reference to Hale: "A husband also cannot be guilty of a rape upon his wife".įor over 150 years after the publication of Hale's work there appears to have been no reported case in which judicial consideration was given to his proposition. "But the husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract".
#Judicial consent summary Pc#
LORD KEITH OF KINKEL.Sir Matthew Hale in his History of the Pleas of the Crown wrote (1 Hale PC (1736) 629):
![judicial consent summary judicial consent summary](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGU5NDc5M2ItYzFkMC00ZThiLTk4MjMtMjNkOWZmZGRkY2NkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU0NTI0Nw@@._V1_.jpg)
R v R (Rape: marital exemption) 4 All ER 481
![judicial consent summary judicial consent summary](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/a0/52/28a052d1a7449574f96c403eb19747c6.jpg)
![judicial consent summary judicial consent summary](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2RiOTc2MTItNGExNi00MmM0LTk2ZmUtMmYyNWM1MzYxMWRmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMwMjk0MTQ@._V1_QL75_UX140_CR0,1,140,207_.jpg)
#Judicial consent summary plus#
![judicial consent summary judicial consent summary](https://i0.wp.com/image.slidesharecdn.com/plannedparenthoodofseattlevcasey-150830121708-lva1-app6891/95/exemplar-landmark-case-planned-parenthood-of-seattle-v-casey-2-638.jpg)
Practice Direction - Judicial Precedent 3 All ER 77 (HL).Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission 2 AC 147 1 All ER 208.R v Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore 1 QB 574 (CA).R v Inland Revenue Commissioners and others, ex parte Rossminster Ltd (CA) AC 952 3 All ER 385.Collins v Minister of the Interior 1 SA 552 (AD) in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa.Harris v Minister of the Interior (no.2) (1952) 4 SA 769 in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa.Liversidge v Anderson and Another AC 207 3 All ER 338.Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation 1 KB 223.Chapter three: The rule of law and the separation of powers.