The Maliciousness of Rape
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
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?
Journal Title
Criminal Law Journal
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
40
Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
DOI
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights 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.
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Criminal Law and Procedure
Australian History (excl. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History)
Law