The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of raping his mother.
In its judgment, the court clarified the existing law on rape and gave guidance on directions that should be given to juries.
The judgment deals in particular with cases in which the accused man claims to have mistakenly believed that the woman consented to sex.
In its judgment the court found that the judge hearing the trial of the man made a mistake in that he stated the defence available to the man too widely.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Barry White, who is now retired, had told the jury at the trial in 2012 that if the accused man believed a woman "might" be consenting then he should be acquitted.
Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Peter Charleton said a woman has a Constitutional right to her bodily integrity.
He said under the law, an accused man must honestly believe that the woman was actually consenting not merely that she might be.
The court found this mistake was in favour of the accused. There was no error identified against him and his appeal was dismissed.
In the judgment, Mr Justice Charleton said that directions given by trial judges necessarily depend on the particular elements of the case.
He said that if sexual intercourse and lack of consent is proven, then the jury should consider the accused's state of mind at the time.
He said the mental element of the crime of rape was that the man knew the woman was not consenting to sexual intercourse or he was reckless as to whether she did or did not consent.
He said recklessness meant the accused man was aware there was a risk the woman was not consenting but nonetheless proceeded.
The judge said if the accused claims to have mistakenly believed that a woman was consenting, then the jury should examine all of the facts which may support or undermine that belief.
He said they should consider all the circumstances and focus on whether there are or are not any reasonable grounds for it.
He said if an accused genuinely believed, even unreasonably that the woman was consenting, he must be acquitted even if she did not consent.
But he said it needs to be stated by trial judges that no jury is under an obligation to believe an obviously false story.
He said this defence required genuine belief.
