Q11. Edward suggests to Fred that Fred should try to have sex with Gaynor. Edward believes that Gaynor is attracted to Fred, but also believes that she will probably not agree to have sex with anyone to whom she is not married. However, Edward also knows that Fred is unlikely to take no for an answer. Fred agrees to Edward's plan. He thinks there is a fair chance that Gaynor will consent but would be happy to go ahead whether she does or not. Fred goes to a party which he knows Gaynor will attend and gets her a few alcoholic drinks. After the party he walks her home and suggests they have sex. He does not wait for an answer before having sex with Gaynor, and is not sure whether or not she is consenting, but in fact she does consent. During sex he asks her if she is on the pill and she says she is, but this is not true. Afterwards Fred tells Gaynor that Edward has always fancied her and wants to have sex with her too. Gaynor tells Fred that she is glad Edward has never tried anything on with her as she would never consent to have sex with Edward. On his way home Fred writes a text message to Edward saying 'go round to Gaynor's - she is desperate to have sex with you too. She likes protesting but take no notice', but Fred cannot get a signal on his phone and so the message to Edward is never sent. Fred (F): Attempted rape against Gaynor (G), contrary to CAA 1981 Rape is an intentional act of penetration with the penis, in circumstances where the victim is non-consenting and where the perpetrator lacks a reasonable belief in her consent. (s1(1) SOA 2003). An attempt is an act which is "more than merely preparatory" (Jones), with the "intent to commit an offence". (s1(1) CAA 1981). F, in getting G a few alcoholic drinks, walking G home and proceeding to have sex with G outright, clearly took steps which were "more than merely preparatory" to the commission of the offence. F also intends the conduct element of the rape, as he intends to penetrate G with his penis. However, it is unclear whether F needs to intend the circumstance element of the rape, the non-consent, (Pace and Rogers) or whether F needs only to have the same MR as the MR for the substantive offence (Khan). During Khan's period, this would have been recklessness about G's consent. Today, after SOA 2003, it would be the lack of reasonable belief in G's consent. While F suspected that there was a "fair chance" G would consent to sex, he would have been happy to go ahead regardless. This suggests that he did not know or intend G's non-consent but was merely reckless about G's non-consent at best. If one adopts the Pace and Rogers approach, F would not be liable for an attempted rape against G. On