The three boys accused of taking it in turns to rape a girl have been found not guilty

No i have never seen this as a reason given by a jury. I have seen cases where judges have used this as a reason when handing a custodial sentence but not the actual verdict from a jury.

I don't believe this is "very common" as you state

Well quite. What he was saying was "I forgive you for damaging my property"
"The jewel in his crown" my arse!

Indeed. Never shout 'rape!' Because nobody responds to that. Shout 'fire!' Because that affects everyone and there's a higher likelihood that people will respond.

It doesn't matter what she thought.

Even if she thought she was going there for sex. If she said no when it came to it, then that's rape. She's allowed to back out, change her mind, revoke consent.

I mean, I doubt that's what she thought was going on, but even if it was, it's irrelevant.

We don’t know what evidence was given in court and we don’t know what happened so I’m not sure why some posters seem so certain that they know what’s happened. The jury can only go on the evidence given in court. If they debated for 9 hours then at least they gave it a lot of thought.

Agree those quotes are just too much. How did we get to hearing that kind of thing again.

She was 13
But I can't actually imagine three young teen boys, in the middle of puberty, trying to gang rape either. One at least was also a virgin.
Some boys at 13 are tiny, very much wee boys, compared to girls the same age.

But clearly the sex happened so the question comes down to consent.

Can it be appealed? The defence barrister’s words were awful, like going back in time

Not guilty does not mean innocent , (that is why they don’t say innocent) it just means the jury didn’t have enough evidence to say guilty without any doubts.

See: Ivy League Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner. I believe the judge was a Stanford alum who didn’t want this poor boy’s life ruined.

I don’t buy it either. Not at 12 years old.

It's actually a very common reason given for the acquittal of rapists. You've never come across this? Happens all the time. "We mustn't ruin his future for one little mistake"
Gah!

I can imagine a 13 year-old girl going into a bush to kiss a boy.

I CANNOT imagine a 13 year-old girl going into a bush to lose her virginity in a gang bang in a homemade porn film. Nope. Not buying it.

And they wonder why victims don’t come forward

I agree

Poor poor girl.
I can’t stand the defending lawyers comments how can a woman say that.
sexual assault and rape trials should have specialists and shouldn’t rely on jury’s in my opinion

“She didn’t scream.”
Alright then. Except for fight, flight, or freeze.

“She flirted with one of the boys on the tram.”
Alright then. Flirting = consent (which can’t legally be given) to an underage gang bang on camera. Got it.

Any mitigating factors based on the girls age at all?

No one goes from virgin to gang bang in one fell swoop though. Especially at 12 ffs.

I know it’s out of context but if those words quoted by the defence are accurately transcribed that’s horrendous. Slut shaming a 12 year old and arguing a grey area around her lack of consent to be gang raped because she fancied one of the boys and went into the bushes with him?

That poor girl. Rape has been decriminalised in this country. We all fucking know it.

Im astounded at this. Who wouldnt intervene?

Exactly - oh, they are too immature to realise what they are doing but she is apparently mature enough at FUCKING 12 to want and consent to have sex with 3 people at once?!

What the actual fuck.

I think this is likely to be true as well. I wholeheartedly wish the evidence had been there to get guilty verdicts.

What you are observing is the fact that a 13 year old didn't behave in the manner that you would expect a young woman to behave if she or an aquaintance were being forced into nonconsensual sex.

The square won't fit the circle as 13 year olds aren't emotionally mature enough to adequately risk assess and manage a sexual encounter - consensual or otherwise - and thus their behaviour may not follow logical norms.

This is why the age of consent is set above this age to a threshold where it is believed a young person would be sufficiently cognisant of both their actions in the moment and potential consequences to be able to give informed consent.

However this also applies to the boys involved with regards to their actions.

This is why these cases are so difficult when the interaction is between peers as neither party has the maturity to make decisions of this nature at these ages.

I 100% believe she did not consent and found guilty of rape or not, the behaviour of those boys was absolutely disgusting.