The defendant was charged with rape, contrary to s 1 SOA 2003. At the beginning of his trial, the prosecution alleged that he had raped V when her level of intoxication was so great that she was effectively unconscious and incapable of consenting. However, by the end of the evidence, the prosecution case was that although V had been conscious and capable of consenting, she had not in fact consented. The Court of Appeal held that on the proper construction of s 74, if, through drink, V had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she was not consenting; that, however, where V had voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agreed to do so, she was consenting. Defence of Mistake D invited X, Y, and Z to his house to have intercourse with his wife, V, telling them that she was kinky, and that if she appeared to resist, it was just pretence. They had intercourse with her, although she struggled and protested. All four were charged with rape. The question on appeal was whether their belief that she consented was a defence. The House of Lords held that a defendant cannot be convicted of rape if he believed, albeit mistakenly, that the woman consented, even though he had no reasonable grounds for that belief (the reasonableness or otherwise of the alleged belief was important evidence as to whether or not it was truly held). This was the first time the Court of Appeal expressly approved the defence of duress of circumstances; D was charged with reckless driving. The passenger in D's car, T, had previously been the target of a gun attack. When two men approached D's car, he feared that T was about to be shot at again, and he drove away, recklessly. Neither D nor T realised that the men were plainclothes police officers. Allowing his appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal held that the defence was available where D could be said from an objective standpoint to be acting in order to avoid death or serious injury, to himself, or another for whose safety D would reasonably regard himself as responsible. As his passenger, T was such a person. Crime must be nominated. Defence is available in all crimes except murder, attempted murder or treason. The defendant, knowing that he was HIV positive, had unprotected consensual sexual intercourse with two women, who were both subsequently diagnosed as HIV positive. He was charged with offences under s 20 OAPA on the basis that he had recklessly transmitted the disease to the women when they did not know of, and did not consent to, the risk of infection. A person who, knowing that he is suffering a serious sexual disease, recklessly transmits it to another through consensual sexual intercourse may be guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 20 of the 1861 Act. V's consent to sexual intercourse is not, of itself, to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease; but if V does consent to such a risk that would provide D with a defence to a charge under s 20.