[Age of Ignorance]

Originally Posted by Oneirophobia

Yeah, what I mean is that for someone to be convicted, the Crown (Prosecution team) has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that a crime actually occured and the accused committed the crime (Actus Reus) and also that the accused had the intention to committ a crime and was mentally responsible for his actions (Mens Rea).

In most cases Actus Reus and Mens Rea BOTH have to be there. They mean "the guilty act" and "the guilty mind".

So for example, a murder by a schizophrenic man. Actus Reus may have been there but Mens Rea isn't and so the guy walks free and gets mandatory psychiatric and psychological treatment.

Rape requires penetration? Really? I didn't know that. Oh, then in that case, I guess that is a pretty valid defence haha, even in Australia.

Carry on.............

LOL.

To be perfectly honest, the general legal principles you talk about are universal throughout all English-derived legal court systems. They all extend from the decisions of the Privy Council and the House of Lords in various cases. So, in fact, you're discussing numerous states, not just Australia.

Nevertheless, "mens rea" does not mean a "guilty mind" in a legal sense. It refers to the intention to perform an act, not guilt of the mind. The "actus reus" elements of a crime are specific, and they are the non-mens rea elements. According to all Commonwealth states, the legislative description of the crime needs to be broken down into sections - non-mens rea and mens rea elements. So, for rape, it requires both an intention to perform penetration, and it requires penetration of an unwilling participant. If you can't penetrate, you can't be said to have performed rape. The size of his penis is obviously a consideration if it is a material element in performing the non-mens rea elements.

If I were a juror, I'd definitely have a reasonable doubt.

It is a shame that the wife-defence doesn't apply to long-term girlfriends.