This article focuses on Court of Appeal sentencing practice in cases of marital and relationship rape. In particular, it examines the sentencing principle set out in the case of Berry in which it was stated that cases of marital and relationship rape sometimes involve less 'violation' and 'defilement' than cases of stranger rape and consequently are given reduced sentences. This article argues against such an approach on the basis that it is poorly reasoned and lacks support from the research literature (...) on rape trauma. In addition, a statistical analysis of Court of Appeal sentencing appeals indicates that the Berry principle is seriously undermining the Billam sentencing guidelines for rape. An analysis of appellate decisions in the USA indicates a very different attitude to the seriousness of marital and relationship rape based upon a willingness of the appellate judges to utilize research evidence in their decisions. (shrink)

This article examines the notion of gender neutrality in rape, its meaning and why rape definitions that include females and males as potential victims of rape have become influential in those jurisdictions that have engaged in significant levels of rape law reform over the last four decades. In so doing, several of Annabelle Mooney’s criticisms of gender neutral rape laws, published in an earlier article, will be critically examined. The second part of this article draws on themes that have been (...) identified in the linguistic analysis of rape trials involving female complainants and applies those themes to two cases of rape and sexual assault involving male complainants. Finally, this article examines whether the tactics used by defence lawyers during cross-examination can be said to be uniquely ‘gendered’ or whether similar tactics exist in cases of male rape and sexual assault. Explanations for possible similarities in treatment are also examined. (shrink)