Ched Evans verdict

"I just can't see how it cuts one way but not the other. "

Yes, I agree.

Perhaps it should be both or neither: if the defence asks for sexual history witnesses, so can the prosecution.

I have no problem with rapists being given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. However, IMO the defence barristers who use unethical tactics, bully victims, and play on rape myths in court are despicable scum.

Here's another example of a barrister who shouldn't be able to sleep at night (but probably can, sadly):

www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2015/32/the-despicable-treatment-of-a-women-who-reported-a-rape-in-scotland

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33823225

Yea WWA. I saw a quote from CE's legal person saying "oh we don't want to stop real rape victims coming forward, that wasn't our aim at all, oh no no..."

Also, I think it was you on a thread the other day saying you wondered how the defence team sleep at night. I disagreed with you and said I couldn't blame them for doing a job. Since the verdict... well I now think you are right. I certainly don't know how the appeal judges sleep at night.

Some people like a juicy debate about the finer points of law

I always consider it in very poor taste when people come on threads like this to quibble over legal definitions, play devil's advocate or play at debating. This isn't an intellectual exercise for many of us. We've lived it. And we don't fucking appreciate being told what to think. We especially don't appreciate being told that we shouldn't worry our silly little heads because the utterly misogynist justice system can always be trusted.

Because we know it can't.

Exactly! How could something like violent pirnography that featured strangulation not be deemed relevant?!

I don't know about defendant's history in terms of what the law says but I can think of so many cases where once they've been found guilty their previous conduct "can now be revealed"

Vincent Tabak comes to mind. Argued and argued that he kissed Joanna Yates and it was normal fancying his neighbour and a bit of flirting that went wrong but then whoops, he accidentally strangled her. Luckily he was convicted, but only then could his collection of violent pornography featuring women being throttled be revealed.

I just can't see how it cuts one way but not the other. I'm not knowledgeable about legal stuff, but I am of the opinion that the law isn't there to protect people like me. Some people like a juicy debate about the finer points of law, but all I can feel is relief that I didn't ever bother reporting being raped (as a child of 8, nor as an adult).

It makes me so angry. The justice system is institutionally misogynist, in the way rape cases are run.

Same here, WomanWith - my friend's trial, that is. He has a previous sexual conviction and it was referred to as a 'conviction' but they weren't allowed to say it was a sexual offence.

It's bizarre - it seems to be very much up to the judge on the day. I arrived in court, and was told I couldn't say certain things from my statement that were judged inadmissible, or I'd cause a mis-trial.

Needless to say my (basically non existent) sexual history was raised.

It's bollocks. My rapist had previous sexual offence convictions but the jury wasn't even told about those.

I was witness in my friend's rape trial - her previous sexual history was raked over and they had her in the witness box for 2 days. His was not. In fact a lot of evidence against him was deemed inadmissible by court (such as the porn he watched and then acted out on her) because it would have prejudiced the jury.

He was found guilty, but she did not have much of a previous sexual history to rake over, and I wonder now if that had an effect on the verdict. It did feel like she was on trial though.

delete

I watched that as well, i believe the 37% figure was from 2006

It may well be very out of date one way or the other now

And i have heard twice on mumsnet that past sexual history is taken into account for rape defendants.....i thought that was bollocks

Does anyone know if its true?

They can disingenuously claim it's about "patterns" which give grounds for reasonable doubt all they like. The main point is to smear the victim and put her life on trial. If she's not a suitable victim, too bad.

God that's horrific, your poor friend.

Sexual history of the victim has no place in a court of law. They are not the ones on trial.

A very close friend of mine was raped and almost beaten to death. They brought up her sexual history. It was horrific to see her on trial instead of him.

My dp actually expected that number to be far higher. He is as disgusted at how this retrial played out as I am. I fear that our dd's have no hope in the future if God forbid they ever find themselves as victims of sexual assault or rape in the future

It doesn't surprise me at all.

I was watching The Wright Stuff this morning and they were discussing the use of victims sexual history in rape trials. Despite the fact that they clearly hadn't researched this case properly (Mr Wright saying that she was involved in a 3 some for a start), and one stupid woman phoning in claiming sexual history should be used in rape trials because so many women 'cry wolf', i was shocked to discover that sexual history of the victim is used in 37% of rape trials. I just cannot fathom how that is okay. It should be banned completely.

The whole reasonable belief in consent thing hugely bothers me. Isn't it supposed to be grounded in the way a normal, reasonable person would behave?

So the jury believe that his conduct that night was within the grounds of normal reasonable behaviour?

Surely not? Have I misunderstood?

I think the main worry is that the bar for sexual history being admitted isn't really very high. Just some common behaviour being described by self interested "witnesses" that some judges decided couldn't possibly be a coincidence. I agree with that FWIW, I don't think it was a coincidence. I know very well what I think.

But leaving this verdict aside, I'm not at all reassured by claims that it was a singular occurrence and will happen very rarely in future. Every defence team will try to admit sexual history now if there is the slightest chance they can get it allowed. And the judiciary may be more likely to allow it on equally flimsy grounds, where in recent times they may have been more wary. Whatever legal pundits may opine, this case has set a dangerous precedent. It's all about the rape myths, that's the important thing, discrediting the victim in the eyes of the jury. Making sure "reasonable doubt" is weighted towards men accused of rape in that "reasonable" is grounded in those rape myths. That's my take on it anyway.

can't get over this verdict
Same.

I too, cannot wrap my head around the decision to allow the victim's sexual history to be brought into it. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument tbh.
I, like a pp, have had "all sorts of sex" but that really means absolutely fuck all unless consent is considered to be the default setting of all women who have ever had or enjoyed sex.

I suppose "new evidence" that might be valid in this case would have been if there was a recording of the woman asking for, or clearly agreeing to, CE joining them to have sex.

But what appears to have happened is he snuck into the room

On the plus side, the GFM just breached £7k :)

Oh fucking HELL.

I'm off to bang my head against a brick wall somewhere.

Disposable - dispicable

To be fair, her sexual history was only brought up in relation to the language she apparently used which had a direct affect on this case. Surely people understand why it was seen as relevant?

They were likely advised to return not guilty if there was a shred of doubt- which it appears there was. As much as I think his behaviour was disposable, I'm not sure I'd convict if I was on the jury for such a serious crime based on what seems to be weak evidence (not perceived) and no actual complaint.