LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Attempted Rape — Removal of Victim’s Pant Without More — Whether Constitutes Attempted Rape
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The removal of the victim's pant without more does not suffice to prove attempted rape; such acts indicate a desire and preparation for sexual connection but fall short of an attempt.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Jegede v. State (2001) NLC-1332000(SC) at p. 15; Paras B–D.
"In any event, the removal of the pant of the prosecutrix without more will not suffice to prove attempted rape. In R. v. Offiong 3 WACA 83 there was evidence that the accused entered the room of complaint uninvited, took off his clothes and expressed a desire to have sexual connection with her and actually caught hold of her. The West African Court of Appeal... held, allowing the appeal of the accused: 'These acts clearly fall short of an attempt to commit rape. They are merely acts which indicate that accused wanted to have and had made preparation to have connection with complainant.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Removing a victim’s pant without further acts does not constitute attempted rape. Such acts indicate desire and preparation but fall short of an attempt. The accused must have done something that goes beyond preparation and is immediately connected to the commission of rape. The principle reflects the proximity requirement. The court considers whether the accused had crossed the Rubicon. The law distinguishes between preparation (e.g., undressing, expressing desire) and attempt (e.g., attempting penetration). The rule protects against conviction for mere preparatory acts. The prosecution must prove acts that unequivocally indicate an intention to commit rape. The standard is high for attempt offences.