Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

You perceive the misunderstanding on his part to be genuine, even though he was sober and considered her to be very drunk, lay down next to her, had just seen his friend leave the room naked after watching him kiss her and go in the room with her.

The jury obviously considered that they couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a genuine misunderstanding.

On balance of probabilities, I don't think it was.

In your opinion, gone, was this sober man at the very least reckless as to whether he had genuine consent from this very drunk woman? And would his balls have actually fallen off if he'd done the right thing and moved away? If you meet a drunken woman in a pub trying to give you £20 because she thinks you are a cabbie, it might not be theft to take it, but it's wrong, don't you think?

I think it was rape because as soon as she found out who she was having sex with, she said it was rape.

Ie. she hadn't consented, and wouldn't have consented to have sex with him, and no consent means rape.

Big, if you got drunk, laydown in bed with your partner, and just as you were sleepy and relaxed, she popped to the toilet for a condom, but instead, someone came back and shoved a lubed cucumber up your arse, that would be wrong wouldn't it?

Just because you'd been planning to have sex with your partner, doesn't mean that some other person can come and have sex with you - even if you really enjoy cucumbers up the arse, you only consented to your partner doing it, not some random stranger.

Promiscuity isn't rape. It doesn't matter how distasteful the accused's actions were -what matters is what he percieved about the woman's state of mind, I.e. who he thought she thought he was. It's clear that the sex was a misunderstanding. It's clear that the accused isn't the most appealing chap to try to have sex under those circumstances. But it's not clear at all who he thought she thought he was.

The misunderstanding doesn't make it rape. Even the fact that the woman has had sex with someone and wouldn't have chosen to doesn't make it rape if there was a genuine misunderstanding.

Mine was a wider point - as per my post, he clearly knew immediately afterwards that he had put his penis into a woman who consented on the basis of him being someone else.

Regardless of the legal situation, you don't think he should be horrified at what he had done?

(Separately, On the balance of probabilities, I think he raped her because he was aware she was very drunk and should have had a mind to her capacity, as he was stone cold sober. I can understand why it was hard to show this beyond reasonable doubt.)

Ok Hell... so your issue (with the first case) is that he didn't say the right words in the immediate aftermath?

It's just that despite not having see/heard all the evidence, you are still of the expressed opinion that he is guilty of rape (when the jury, who were privy to all the evidence thought otherwise in less than 30 mins)

"Sex won't = sex with" in the above post.

Big

These were things the men said to friends shortly after the events in question; I doubt either thought the police would be contacted at that point.

And perhaps the man in the first case thought she was coming onto him (though see my description above of him as stone cold sober, going into a room with a strange woman in it who he knew to be very drunk and lying down next to her).

He didn't come out and say to his friend, "shit, I feel bad, she thought you were me, she must feel really awful because she had sex won't someone other than who she thought" - it was a bit of a joke between them.

HTH.

Also AHellOfABird...

In the first case, there was no disregard for the woman's sexual autonomy. The reported evidence (which the jury accepted) says that SHE came onto him, which would explain why he thought she was consenting.

"None of the men involved had any inkling or care that these reckless actions were awful for the woman concerned..."

I suspect their minds were more focused on the small matter of not being sent to jail.

And it's notable that for the men involved, their first thought was one of mockery/criticism for the woman, not utter remorse for the "mix-up".

This guy came out and told his friend, "Man you will not believe what she has done" and his friend laughed. The hotel bloke, IIRC, told a friend that he couldn't believe he'd shagged someone old enough to be his mother.

None of the men involved had any inkling or care that these reckless actions were awful for the woman concerned, whether or not they legally constituted rape (IMO, both did). Where does this utter disregard for women's sexual autonomy come from?!

A few years back, there was a case where a man was cleared of rape after, according to him, going into a hotel room and penetrating the woman there in belief she was his girlfriend (then in a different room).

Whichever way the "mistaken identity" goes, it seems that women lose. What a surprise.

If the accused can establish he had a reasonable belief the woman consented that is a defence.

This decision puzzles me. I am not sure the same verdict would have been reached under the equivalent Scottish statute.

See section 13.

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/contents

So is the first case saying the law concerning rape is loaded in the perpetrators favour? That is if the rapist believes the victim has consented, even if the woman hasn't, it is not actually rape?

From the mouth of the accused - "‘I was just thinking, “I didn’t really want to have sex with her”, but I’m a human being and if you get touched like that you have a motivation to move on. I figured she was probably very drunk. "

So, you gave a lift to your house to a drunk mate and a drunk woman, whilst you were sober. You let them go into your bedroom then saw your mate come out naked. You decided to try and get the unknown, drunk woman out of your bed by nudging her and lying next to her - a woman your naked friend had just left.

You figured she was very drunk, though you were not, so surely you knew she must have been at least somewhat lacking in capacity - yet none of this stopped you putting your dick in her?

Nice.

The second story is horrific, the rapist seems to have thought of the victim as a possession, something to be used to pay back a third party.
'His girlfriend of 3 years is standing by him' is incomprehensible to me.

Bloody hell. That first story is really stupid, he must have known she was not interested in sex with him, she was saying the other man's name!

The second story is just horrendous.

Yup

Yes its ched Evansey isn't t
will this get deleted
ok

That mr cockblocker actually used that as his defense is even more baffling

Exactly
She wanted sex
She wasnt bothered about with who

Who thinks that???

I want sex. Does that make it OK for all men to assume they can have sex with me?

It's the old premise that a woman who wants sex with one man is happy to have sex with another .

There is no way he could have thought she had consented to him other than in his own twisted little head. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Bu her boyfriend was off getting viagra (which I find bizarre for other reasons ). Why would he assume she was happy to have sex with him.
I suppose if the idea she'd got them mixed up never even crossed his mind then that's a reasonable assumption but just seems so odd.

That she was a woman who wanted sex?
Hence the enthusiastic consent.