R v Olugboja [1982]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant, Olugboja, asked the victim (V) to take off her trousers. This incident occurred in the context of heightened tension, as V’s friend had just been raped by Olugboja's friend. Despite the absence of a direct threat and no visible physical struggle or outcry from V, the judge directed the jury to consider whether V had consented to the sexual intercourse. Olugboja was convicted of rape and appealed against the direction, claiming there was no evidence establishing a lack of consent.

Issue: Whether submission, defined as a lack of physical resistance, equates to consent in the context of sexual intercourse.

Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Key Judicial Statements: Dunn LJ emphasised that “loss of consent is not only limited to situations where there is force, fear or fraud.” He articulated a fundamental principle, stating, “every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent.” In situations where threats do not involve violence or the fear of violence, Dunn LJ directed the jury to focus on the victim's state of mind immediately before the act, considering all circumstances, particularly the events leading up to the act and the victim's reactions indicating the impact on her mental state.

💡 Leveluplaw: established a critical distinction between submission and consent, clarifying that the absence of physical resistance does not automatically imply consent, especially in sexual intercourse cases. The court underscored the importance of considering the victim's state of mind and reactions in evaluating consent, particularly in contexts where threats lack violence or instill fear. This ruling reinforces the understanding that consent must be clear and affirmative, rather than inferred from submission alone.