This is the definition of rape:
-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
That definition has not changed at all.
Note point (2):Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
That has been part of the definition since 2003. It is part of defining the defence, and has been for 12 years. All this guidance does is to tell the police and prosecutors to actually do their job, to follow the law and ask the right questions in order to determine whether rape has occurred or not.
You see, what police have been doing, in hundreds of cases, is listening to the distraught and sometimes injured woman explaining what happened, going to the accused and asking him what happened, then just believing the man when he says it was consensual, even in cases where there is forensic evidence of rape. They then write "no crime" and the case is closed.
What this guidance says is, actually, if a woman reports a very serious crime, one that carries the penalty of life imprisonment, it is the duty of the police to actually investigate it, properly.
It is also the duty of the prosecutors to ask the right questions at trial to determine what exactly happened, and to see if the man is trying to claim that a silent, frozen, terrified woman was "consenting."