R v Collins: THE LEGENDARY AND BIZARRE RAPE CASE THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED

 

The case of R v Collins (1973) QB 100 is one of the most bizarre case that a criminal law student will find in his studies as the facts are particularly remarkable and the judgment that supported the “I thought I had just got lucky” view has become one of the most debated judgment of all time.

In this case, the defendant Mr Collins, a 19 year old workman who had previously worked in the house of the victim, a 18 year old young woman went out for drinks and at about 2:00am went to the house drunk. The young woman was sleeping in bed naked and the window to her room was wide open. The room was not on the ground floor so Collins took a ladder and climbed over to the window seeing her laying in bed naked. He went down the ladder to undress leaving only his socks on. The victim having met her boyfriend a few hours earlier to that time thought that he had come for his nightly visits as had happened several times in the past so upon seeing the silhouette of Collins by the window clearly naked and aroused, she put her hands around him and pulled him in as her bed was situated right beside the window. She was under the mistaken identity that Collins was her boyfriend because Collins was blond and also of a similar build as her boyfriend and it was only after they had sexual intercourse that she realized she had been mistaken so she screamed and sent him out. 

The next day, Collins was arrested and charged with “burglary with intent to commit rape” under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. The bizarre thing is that he could not be charged with “Rape” because it was held that the young woman gave her consent to the sexual intercourse even though she was mistaken as to the identity of the defendant. 

At trial, the case was decided by a judge and jury. The jury convicted the defendant of burglary with intent to commit rape and he was sentenced to twenty-one (21) months in prison. Collins subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal on two grounds: 

(i) that he hadn’t actually entered the bedroom at the time that the young woman grabbed him and pulled him in (he was only on the window sill); and 

(ii) because she pulled him in, he was not a trespasser – he was there with her consent. The facts of Collin’s exact position as at the time of entry could not be confirmed as both parties were not able to give clear statements as regards that so it was hazy. The trial judge had rejected these submissions from the defendant’s defendants counsel during the trial and he made a mistake by not listing all issues very relevant to make out the offence under the statute to the jury. At least two were not put to the jury, the jury had convicted based on the grounds of a misdirection as the jury had not been advised by the trial judge to consider if he was a trespasser at the time of entry.

 

Read: Who is at Fault in a Case of Domestic Violence?

 

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the facts that the judge had misdirected the jury on this test so the court allowed the appeal on the basis that the jury had not been advised to consider whether Collins was a trespasser and even if he were not on the ordinary basis a trespasser, whether he was reckless as to his entry on the basis of consent not intended for him and should have realized himself to be a trespasser. On that basis, the court found his conviction unsafe and it was duly quashed it! Although, most people would think that it was blindingly obvious that he was ‘invited in by mistake’, this decision was unanimously made by the Court of Appeal while considering that the jury may have decided adversely had they been properly advised. 

This legendary case has always been debated on which judgment was fair and more preferred. With the strides that gender equality and feminism has taken since the case was decided in 1973, which judgment do you think was just and fair between the two courts.