• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • The Maliciousness of Rape

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    KaladelfosPUB2539.pdf (45.36Kb)
    File version
    Version of Record (VoR)
    Author(s)
    Kaladelfos, Andy
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Kaladelfos, Andy
    Year published
    2016
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The High Court of Australia’s judgment in Mraz v The Queen (No 1)1 was the first time the court offered a legal opinion on rape. But those opinions have long been forgotten as the case instead became precedential for its decisions on miscarriages of justice in Mraz (No 1) and estoppel in Mraz v The Queen (No 2).2 These precedents, favourable to the accused, meant no justice for the deceased woman. The legal use of Mraz has obscured the original issue underlying the appeals at the time: what was the “maliciousness” of rape and what “injury” did it cause?The High Court of Australia’s judgment in Mraz v The Queen (No 1)1 was the first time the court offered a legal opinion on rape. But those opinions have long been forgotten as the case instead became precedential for its decisions on miscarriages of justice in Mraz (No 1) and estoppel in Mraz v The Queen (No 2).2 These precedents, favourable to the accused, meant no justice for the deceased woman. The legal use of Mraz has obscured the original issue underlying the appeals at the time: what was the “maliciousness” of rape and what “injury” did it cause?
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Criminal Law Journal
    Volume
    40
    Publisher URI
    https://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/criminal-law-journal-online/productdetail/97167
    Copyright Statement
    This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited.
    Subject
    Criminal Law and Procedure
    Australian History (excl. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History)
    Law
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/100712
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander