Man cleared of rape because he was too drunk to realise which bed he was in.

Surely the only way you can "not intend to rape" someone is by not raping them?

If he really had thought it was his girlfriend then knowing that she had already said no she didn't want to have sex with him the only difference in the scenario is that rather than raping a stranger he would have raped his girlfriend.

So the inference is that the jury were somehow unaware that raping your girlfriend is rape (which the judge should have clearly stated as this has been illegal for a fair few years) and thought that if you rape someone who you think is your girlfriend that is OK.

I am reminded of the "eggshell skull" rule whereby if you commit an assault, say pushing someone over, that would normally only lead to minor injury if at all, you can be done for murder if the person happens to have a condition that means it kills them. You can be committed of the more serious crime of assulting a police officer even if they are in plain clothes.

The logic does not seem to follow through in this case does it?

I know, omg, it isn't that clear. He is also supposed to show what steps he took to gain consent, but that isn't mentioned either.

Maybe there is a lawyer around that could shed more light on this.

Yes he admitted it but he said that he didn't intend to do it and as far as I am aware the prosecution have to prove intent. Not 100% I am not a lawyer but that is all I can think of.

But he said he had sex with a sleeping woman. That is rape, even if it had been his girlfriend. He admitted it! We'll see what develops in the next few days....

I think the title of the article is very deceiving. I can't say for sure but i think this case is more about the prosecution not being able to prove their case correctly more than him being aqquited because he was to drunk.

the DM often picks up stories like this first, it might well be in the Times and Torygraph in the next few days.

Even if it's not quite the right channel, I wanted to do something, so I have emailled the Attorney General ([email protected]) to ask for a re-examination of the case.

Its very odd how little coverage this is getting - don't get me wrong, I get that rape doesn't get great coverage, but this is a pretty odd story - that by claiming "But your honour, I was pissed out of my nut" you can therefore be exonerated of crime.

I wonder if that works for drunk driving.

Elephants

Just Googled the place and it's a pub and 'hotel' so you could be right inasmuch as having to remember to lock your door.

The article also says he went to another room for a shower so I assume the rooms aren't en-suite?

HerBex oh don't get me wrong - I'm disgusted but not surprised this has happened. I was more surprised he got off scot free for stealing her phone as property seems to be held in higher esteem by the courts than people IMO.

Oh good point about having the key from earlier and about it being a scummy b&b with normal doors. Googled the hotel name and sounds like it.

That is very sad HerBeX. I can't believe that a man can enter a hotel room, rape an unsuspecting sleeping woman and then walk free by claiming he was too drunk to notice it was the wrong woman. And we stand in judgement of the barbaric laws of other countries. We aren't much better then.

Wishingchair and Privategodfrey - it's understandable that you can't believe that it is possible for a man to walk free after having committed a rape like this.

But er, it's normal. 94% of reported rapes do not end in a conviction. Since most police figures estimate false rape allegations at being at about 4% is, that means that 90% of reported rapists go free.

It's very hard to get your head round, to know that we can be raped at any time by any man, and there is only a tiny chance that we will get justice for it. But that is the case.

Denial is so much easier isn't it?

I did wonder that too WishingChairAgain

It says in that article that his girlfriend had previously been staying in the room so perhaps he still had a key/passcard?

Other than that it would insinuate that the woman invited him in, however, he has made no attempt to claim that was the case.

Repeating post.

How would he have got into the woman's room though? Hotel rooms can't be opened from the outside even if she'd forgotten to lock it from the inside.

(Not that I'm defending the dogshit but wondering if there's more to it for there to be such an unbelievable decision)

Fucking hell.

Cannot think of anything else except that right now.

Too angry to comment coherently.

Eh? Even if she had been his girlfriend then she would be his proposed sexual partner not his property. He had no right to shag his girlfriend if she did not consent and in fact the article reports that the girlfriend specifically had declined to have sex with him. If the facts are as they are reported then this is very concerning although sadly not surprising.

The whole story disgusted me but the 'icing on the cake' was his comment about 'I can't believe I've had sex with a woman old enough to be my mother' or some such shite.

He stole her phone after he raped her - more surprised the fuckwitted judiciary didn't jail him for that, after all possessions seem to be placed higher than people in terms of worth.

Don't forget that women must know how to say no in all world languages. Because if you are raped (in the UK) by a man who doesn't speak much english, then naturally the courts will understand that there is no way that he could have known the sex was unwanted.

I've not read the link I don't feel like getting enraged tonight.

HerBeX - I would love to know how much a grilling those on trial for rape get in terms of the consent issue. Seeing as it's pretty fundamental an' all.