R v C (Barry) [2004] EWCA Crim 292
Marital Rape – Consent – Abuse of Process – Article 7(1) European Convention on Human Rights – R v R – Husband Can Be Convicted of Raping Wife Retrospectively
Facts
The defendant was convicted on a number of counts of sexual and violent offences against four different women between the years of 1967-1987. This case concerns a conviction of rape against his wife at the time (third count). The defendant married the complainant in 1967. There was a history of abuse and violence in the marriage and it ended in 1971. The rape occurred when they were married. The complainant had suffered a miscarriage and was in hospital. When she was released, the defendant wanted to have sexual intercourse, but she did not consent. She made this clear to him.
Issues
The defendant appealed against his conviction of rape, arguing the incident took place before R v R 1991 stated that a husband could be convicted of raping his wife; at the time, there was common law principle of irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with the husband. This was an abuse of process and contravened Article 7(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states no one can be found guilty if ‘any act or omission did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed.’
Decision/Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The court stated that ‘his marriage certificate did not entitle him to force his unwanted sexual attentions on her’ [26]. This confirmed the cases of R v R and R v Graham Land that a husband can be convicted of the rape of his wife. There was also no infringement of the defendant’s Convention rights and no abuse of process.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of R v C (Barry) [2004] EWCA Crim 292. The legal principles discussed remain good law. The foundational ruling in R v R [1992] 1 AC 599 (House of Lords) — that the marital rape exemption had no place in modern law — has not been overturned and continues to be applied. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 subsequently placed the law of rape on a comprehensive statutory footing, confirming that marriage affords no immunity from prosecution for rape; this reinforces rather than undermines the article’s analysis. The Article 7 ECHR point was also considered by the European Court of Human Rights in SW v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 363, which held that the removal of the marital rape exemption was a reasonably foreseeable development of the law and did not violate Article 7. The article does not mention this Strasbourg authority, which provides important supporting context for the Article 7 analysis. Readers should be aware that the relevant statutory framework is now the Sexual Offences Act 2003 rather than the pre-2003 common law position that was in issue in this case, though this does not affect the accuracy of the case summary itself.
