R v Bree
A drunken person can still consent to sex, but if she has temporarily lost the capacity to choose whether to have sex, she does not consent.
Facts
Mr Bree and the complainant, both students, had been drinking heavily together. They went back to her flat, where she was sick, and Mr Bree had sexual intercourse with her. She said that she had not consented, although she had been conscious for most of the time. He said that she had consented. He was convicted of rape after the judge gave the jury no guidance on how to approach consent when the complainant had been drinking.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Sir Igor Judge P said that a person who has drunk a lot of alcohol may still have the capacity to choose whether to have intercourse, and if she does so, drunken consent is still consent: a drunken consent is still consent. However, if through drink the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse, she does not consent. The capacity to consent may evaporate well before she becomes unconscious. The jury should have been directed on these issues.
Related cases on sexual offences and consent
- Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- R (F) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), [2014] QB 581
- R v B [2006] EWCA Crim 2945, [2007] 1 WLR 1567
- R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527
- R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732, [2005] 1 WLR 2005
- R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582
- R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971, [2020] 1 WLR 5025
- R v Linekar [1995] QB 250
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
