Lord Donovan J:

The appellant was convicted in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on 22 November 1962 of rape and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. His appeal to the Court of Appeal at Kuala Lumpur was dismissed on 24 January 1963.

By order of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dated 26 February 1964 he was granted special leave to appeal to the Board.

The appellant, who is of Chinese origin, is the proprietor of a retail business in Kuala Lumpur, where he has lived since 1940. His age was apparently not given in evidence, or at any rate is not recorded. The complainant was one Philomena Lim, a married woman, aged twenty-eight at the time, with a husband aged forty, and with three young children. At the time of the alleged offence she had been married nine years. Her husband was a civil servant in Kuala Lumpur. The complainant was a typist for the first four years of her married life. Since then her sole occupation has been that of a housewife and mother.

The appellant first met the complainant on 4 May 1962 at a club in Kuala Lumpur, being introduced to her by a Mrs. Roberts who was a common acquaintance. The evening was spent dancing and taking refreshment.

The second meeting of the two was five days later, namely on 9 May at a party at the Eastern Hotel Cabaret organised by the appellant in honour of the Japanese Commercial Attach'e9 whom he knew. The other guests included the complainant and her husband. After dinner the party went to the Cosmopolitan Club, then to eat at some near-by eating stalls, and then back to the club. The party broke up at 3am. By this time the complainant's husband was tipsy, and the complainant drove him home in their car. During this evening also there was dancing. The complainant gave evidence which was not disputed that she never drank alcoholic liquor.

It was at the third meeting between the appellant and the complainant which took place on the following day that the alleged rape occurred. According to the evidence given by the complainant at the trial it came about in this way.

At 9am on that morning, i.e. 10 May 1962, she commenced a dancing lesson at a dancing school kept by one Daniel in Kuala Lumpur. During the lesson the appellant telephoned her, saying that her husband had a very bad headache, that he, the appellant, was taking him to a friend's house, and would call at the dancing school and take the complainant to her husband when the dancing lesson was over.

The appellant did in fact arrive at the dancing school in his small trade motor van, and waited for the complainant's dancing lesson to finish. He then drove her to a houseNo. 1A Lorong Parry in Kuala Lumpur, and persuaded her to enter, saying "Your husband is inside". She entered the house following the appellant, who, after taking her down a corridor, pushed her into a room with a double bed in it. At once he placed a chair against the door, and told her not to shout. If she did, he would strangle her. In saying that he put his hands near her neck. He also said that if she did shout it would be no use as the people in the house were all his friends. He then proceeded to strip her. First he took off her blouse. Then her brassiere, then her jeans, then her underwear. During this time she was standing still, too frightened to do anything. After undressing her the appellant took her to the bed. He then took off his own trousers, came on top of her, pushing her legs apart with one of his knees, and had intercourse with her. While doing so he kissed her on the ear. After intercourse she said to him "why should you do this to me" and he replied "Forbidden fruit is sweeter". At no time did she struggle or shout for help. She was shocked and frightened. After it was over, the appellant drove her back to her house in his van.

Their Lordships have recounted the details of the complainant's version for a reason which will presently appear.

The appellant's evidence was different. He said that on the evening of