logo
The ‘honest belief' defence in rape cases rewards ignorance and insensitivity

The ‘honest belief' defence in rape cases rewards ignorance and insensitivity

Irish Times24-07-2025
There is still much work to be done before the human rights and dignity of victims of sexual violence in Ireland are truly realised.
A persistent barrier to protecting victims' rights in sexual offence cases is the legal defence based on 'honest belief' that is open to those accused of rape. This means a person accused of rape may avoid conviction if the jury accepts that they honestly believed the other person was consenting – even if that belief was entirely unreasonable in the circumstances.
While the
Supreme Court
has clarified that juries need not accept 'obviously false' accounts, the law still permits acquittal based solely on the accused's subjective perception of events. As it stands, the 'honest belief' defence does not require that the belief be 'reasonable', and relies entirely on the accused's perception of whether the victim was consenting.
This undermines the core principle of mutual, meaningful consent that is enshrined in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, which defines consent as 'freely and voluntarily given'.
READ MORE
Some other areas of criminal law measure a person's actions or beliefs against what a reasonable person would have done. However, when it comes to rape, an accused person can rely on their own interpretation of events, even if there is no reasonable explanation for their belief, and even if they took no steps to establish or confirm consent.
The
Law Reform Commission
recommended changing to a 'reasonable belief' standard
in its comprehensive report in 2019. It pointed out that a complainant's silence – which may have derived from fear and trauma – could be interpreted incorrectly as consent, and that an honest belief on this basis might even encourage people not to ascertain consent. The commission concluded that arguments against the current law far outweighed arguments in favour of it. Prof Tom O'Malley said that the law as it stands 'places a premium on ignorance, lack of consideration or insensitivity'.
At the
Dublin Rape Crisis Centre
, we support a legislative change that introduces an objective reasonableness standard, as well as a requirement that appropriate actions have been taken to confirm consent. Such changes will mean a closer alignment with our existing statutory definition of consent.
For most victims and survivors, this reform would be welcome and necessary. Honest belief as a defence centres the accused's subjective viewpoint, often at the expense of the victim's experience and agency.
Reporting a rape takes immense courage and determination, yet survivors must navigate a legal system that is often very challenging. When the law allows the accused to invoke honest belief without any need to demonstrate that this belief was reasonable or based on any concrete steps to establish consent, it can compound survivors' feelings of disempowerment and erode their confidence that their voice matters. If we truly wish to encourage more survivors to seek justice, this reform would be an important positive step.
In Ireland, we have come close to modernising this law once before. We strongly supported the honest-belief reforms in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill, published in July 2023. It would have replaced the current defence with a requirement that belief in consent must be objectively reasonable. It also proposed that juries must consider whether the accused took steps to ascertain consent, which might include verbal confirmation or other clear indication of agreement.
In effect, the planned changes enshrined the question: would a reasonable person, in the same situation, with the same knowledge, have believed there was consent?
These reforms were necessary and proportionate. They reflected both public understanding and the legal reality of what genuine consent entails, as well as the lived experience of survivors of sexual violence.
[
'Scale of our sexual violence epidemic' shown by record calls and texts to national rape crisis helpline
Opens in new window
]
Adopting an objective standard would align Ireland with international best practice. Countries including England and Wales already require a reasonable objective belief of consent, for instance. It would also reflect the principles of the Istanbul Convention, which focuses on whether the alleged victim freely and voluntarily agreed to sexual activity, as assessed in the full context – not just on the accused's own belief.
Similarly, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) urges states to eliminate laws that permit subjective or unreasonable interpretations of consent. These international bodies recognise that in matters as serious as rape, subjective belief – no matter how honestly claimed – is not enough.
In recent years, Ireland has taken progressive steps towards addressing gender-based violence and supporting victims. The national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence sets out ambitious goals and legislative reform is central to achieving them.
So we were very concerned to learn in November 2023 that the honest belief provisions were being dropped from the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill. We warned that removing these provisions weakened the legislation and we urged then-minister for justice,
Helen McEntee
, to reconsider. She clarified that these provisions were only being cut so as not to hold up the rest of the Bill, while her department addressed considerations on honest belief arising from a recent Supreme Court judgment. McEntee committed to drafting a stand-alone Sexual Offences Bill that would mean the proposed reforms would apply to both rape and sexual assault cases, as flagged by the judgment.
Minister for Justice
Jim O'Callaghan
is progressing the matter with the Attorney General and should move swiftly to introduce legislation that would ensure belief in consent can only be a defence if it was both honestly and reasonably held.
If the new Bill is the robust piece of legislation it ought to be, it must receive cross-party support from members of the Oireachtas when it is published. It will send a clear, consistent message that consent must be mutual and ongoing, based on communication and not on assumption or a one-sided perception.
Rachel Morrogh is chief executive of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Anyone affected by sexual violence at any time can get free, confidential support on the 24-hour National Helpline 1800 77 8888
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Couple fails to stop demolition of Co Meath home built in ‘wilful' breach of planning laws almost 20 years ago
Couple fails to stop demolition of Co Meath home built in ‘wilful' breach of planning laws almost 20 years ago

Irish Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Irish Times

Couple fails to stop demolition of Co Meath home built in ‘wilful' breach of planning laws almost 20 years ago

A couple have lost a last ditch legal bid at preventing the demolition of their large Co Meath home built in 'wilful breach' of planning laws almost 20 years ago. There was 'no merit' to the appeals by Chris Murray and his wife Rose, Mr Justice Senan Allen said, when giving the three judge Court of Appeal 's judgment dismissing them. The appeals concerned an action that, while initiated in September 2022, was 'the latest battle' in a 20-year war about the fate of the unauthorised development at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan . It was, he believed, obvious to Meath County Council from the outset that the action and appeal were 'artifices calculated to postpone the evil day'. READ MORE After Mr Murray's 2006 application for permission to build a house on the lands was refused, the couple, 'undaunted, and in wilful breach of the planning laws', built a house anyway of about 588 sq m (6,220 sq ft), twice the size of the house for which permission was refused, the judge said. The council took proceedings in 2007 under the Planning Act and in 2017 the Supreme Court upheld High Court orders for the couple to remove any unauthorised development from their land. They were given one year to vacate the property. When that was not complied with, the council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it. The council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it Three days before they were to vacate, the Murrays issued a case against the council, claiming there was new evidence relating to land sterilisation agreements made by the previous owners of the land that invalidated the council's planning refusals. Last year the High Court granted a council application to strike out that case as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. In the Court of Appeal judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Allen said the couple built a 6,220 sq ft house without planning permission, 'well knew' they would need permission 'but hoped they would get away with it'. The Murrays claimed, as a result of actions, inactions and misrepresentations by the council, they had acquired a 'pig in a poke' title to the lands, he said. While a planning condition for a nearby residence stated an agreement sterilising (preventing) the lands from any other housing or non-agricultural development should be entered into – and the council relied on that in refusing permission to the Murrays – it was accepted no sterilisation agreement was ever entered. There was 'no justification' for contending the council misrepresented the case to the court, he said. The Murrays had not appealed the original permission refusal to An Bord Pleanála or sought to judicially review it, he said. They had had 'every opportunity' to make whatever case they thought they had; the courts had considered all they had to say but the Supreme Court had, in 2017, decided the house 'had to come down'. While they argued in this appeal that adequate account was not taken of their new evidence, there was no appeal against the High Court conclusion it would not have affected the original outcome. At the heart of their opposition to the council's enforcement procedures was a grievance with the refusal of their original planning application but, as a matter of law, that grievance was 'not justiciable'. Any infirmity in the original refusal could not conceivably have provided any justification for unauthorised construction of a house, still less one twice the size, he said. It was 'perverse' that the Murrays, having 'driven a coach and four' through the planning Act, were complaining the council failed 'to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures'. A 'so-called constitutional challenge' concerning the council's use of section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in its proceedings was unrelated to the new evidence, he said. The couple's fresh permission retention applications were not relevant to whether their proceedings raised a fair issue to be tried, he held. The couple had not identified any error in the decision under appeal, the court concluded.

Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed
Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed

Irish Examiner

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Examiner

Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed

Rwanda on Tuesday became the third African nation to agree to accept deportees from the United States under the Trump administration's plans to send migrants to countries they have no ties with to get them off American soil. Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the US, with 'the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement' under the agreement. Ms Makolo did not provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out. The US sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the US illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees' home countries refused to take them back. Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade The US has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Donald Trump's plans to expel people who he says entered the US illegally and are 'the worst of the worst'. Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the UK to accept migrants who had arrived in the UK to seek asylum. Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there. The contentious agreement was criticised by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain's new Labour government took over. Britain's Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a US Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations. They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out. South Sudan, which is tipping towards civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is. The US also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time. A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy. The king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned. Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the US. Rwanda, a country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under long-time President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Mr Kagame, who has been president for 25 years. This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration Government spokesperson Ms Makolo said the agreement with the US was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because 'our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation'. 'Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,' she said. There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees. Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said 'appeasing President Trump pays'. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store