What is not required to prove an attempted rape according to AG's ref (No 1 of 1992) (1993)?

In the context of proving an attempted rape, it's essential to understand the legal criteria that distinguish an attempt from a completed offense. According to AG's Ref (No 1 of 1992) (1993), what is not required to establish the offense of attempted rape is that the perpetrator must have an erection. This is because the focus in attempted rape cases is on the intention to commit the crime and the actions taken towards that end, rather than on the physical state of the perpetrator at the time of the attempt.

The legal framework emphasizes a clear intention to engage in a sexual act without consent, along with some overt act that indicates movement towards the commission of the crime. This can occur without the need for the perpetrator's body to respond in a specific way, which may seem relevant but is not a requisite for the offense itself.

In contrast, the other elements listed reflect circumstances that can relate to the gravity of the attempt but are not interpreted as necessary for proving the attempt of rape. The resistance of the victim serves to highlight the lack of consent, gaining entry to the victim's home can illustrate the perpetrator's determination or planning, and physical contact could indicate the engagement or escalation of the attempt. However, none of these