The crucial question is, are these decisions an accurate reflection of the public’s understanding of what the offence of rape truly is? Are these cases stretching the definition of rape so far that there is now an insurmountable gap between the Court's understanding of what rape is, and that of the public’s? In the criminal law it is very important that the offence the courts say has been committed is a fair reflection of the public’s understanding of it. This is known as the principle of ‘fair labelling’: the label placed on the offender by the courts must be a fair description in the public’s mind – not just a lawyer’s mind – of what was done. It is noteworthy that a jury did not consider the cases I referred to above. So a jury – twelve members of the public – have not been asked to consider whether facts such as these fall within their idea of rape.