Something I posted when I first started the Gender society Law forum.

An Example of Judicial Precedent





R versus John Matthews

The ruling which confirmed that vaginal rape of a transsexual woman may be prosecuted as rape

October 1996



This important and under-reported ruling confirmed that non-consentual penile penetration of the surgically-constructed vagina of a transsexual woman can, in law, be rape if the other ingredients of the offence are satisfied

Prior to this ruling Vaginal rape was based on the legal, technical description and clinical make of a Gender born females Vagina.

Which defence council were adamant that within the legal definition ‘’Vagina’ that a case of rape was not applicable as a surgically constructed vagina did not meet the clinical specifications and purpose of a natal born womans vagina, pleading that the charge be reduced to a lesser charge of indecent assault.

The RH Judge Hooper ruled

turn then to the question whether penetration of a male’s artificial vagina can constitute rape in the circumstances reflected by the admissions. Section 1 uses the word “person”. The words “whether vaginal or anal” relate to the intercourse. Indeed, the section might more happily read:

“A man commits rape if (a) he has sexual intercourse (whether vaginal or anal) with a person”.

Furthermore, rape being the non-consensual penile penetration of either of the two intimate orifices, I see no reason why, as a matter of public policy, that the offence is not committed.

In conclusion, therefore, in my judgment, penile penetration of a male’s biological artificial vagina can, in law, constitute rape. There is no dispute that, having resolved the matter in this way, I should direct the jury that, as a matter of law, the penile penetration of this complainant’s vagina is rape if the other ingredients of the offence are satisfied.



This was something, that had never been envisaged when drafting the GRA, that a transsexuals vagina was not included in the lawful description when it came to rape, this case law, precedent in law has overruled the clinical definition as far as the sexual offences act sect (1) vaginal rape. Rape is no longer gender specific under the sexual offences act now, it is an offence against the persons act rape, either anally or vaginally, orally



I will try and include further interesting examples of case law in future publications, regarding Hight Court Judgements relating to the failures of Health Services and public bodies being found negligent or at fault when dealing with the Our particular community and the laws and our entitlements to fair and unbiased treatment.

The elements of rape are:

(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another personwith his penis;

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents

Penetration of the mouth is included.

Rape is still a crime of basic intent, and drunkenness is no defence.

Not even a wow, never even thought about that aspect, response,