R v Hudson [1996] EWCA Crim 2937

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D) was charged with engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who had a severe mental disability that impaired her ability to give informed consent. D claimed that he was unaware of her condition at the time of the act. The victim's mental incapacity was severe and apparent to those who knew her, but D contended that he had no knowledge of it.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that for D to be convicted, it had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D either knew or should have reasonably known about the woman's mental incapacity. The court emphasized that knowledge, or at least reasonable suspicion, was necessary to establish liability in sexual offences involving vulnerable individuals.

💡Levelup: This case focused on the significance of D's knowledge or reasonable suspicion in sexual offences involving individuals with mental disabilities. The ruling underscored the need for proof that D either knew or was reckless as to the victim’s vulnerability.