******TRIGGER WARNING Powerful message from a midwife (re. the murder of Natalie Connolly) TRIGGER WARNING ******

I have emailed the attorney general too, outraged, disgusted and incredibly sad for Natalie and her family.

I have emailed:

Mr Cox,

I am writing to you to reconsider both the charge (manslaughter by gross negligence, rather than murder) and the subsequent sentencing of only 40 months of John Broadhurst at Birrmingham Crown Court, following his brutal killing of Natalie Connolly. Not only did she received over 40 injuries, but she was also callously left to die when perhaps medical intervention could have saved her life.

I also have questions about how the relationship of the defendant and victim has been portrayed in the court and the media. Why has there been no statement from Natalie's family and friends given to the court? A woman who is dead cannot speak for herself; Natalie cannot speak for herself and so her closest relations must be allowed to do so on her behalf. It is a sad day when the comments of the man who left Natalie with such horrendous injuries are taken as fact with no consideration to his bias.

The so called mitigation of ‘rough sex gone wrong’ sets a dangerous precedent to excuse extreme violence against women.This verdict gives the unacceptable impression that the life of a woman and mother is of such little value, that she can be seriously injured and left to die and no serious consequence is forthcoming. I therefore believe that this sentence is unduly lenient.

I ask that this case is referred to the court of appeal, for reconsideration of the sentence handed to John Broadhurst. Natalie deserved better, her daughter deserves better.

Your's sincerely,

My name

I read the sentencing comments, and two things stood out as worthy of further investigation at appeal:

1. The judge says that Natalie consented to having the bottle inserted inside her. However, he also notes that she was heavily intoxicated (her blood alcohol level was in the coma/death range), had fallen down the stairs and broken her eye socket, and was speaking 'gobbledygook'. How can he conclude based on this evidence that she consented when it seems she was too drunk to consent to anything?

2. The most worrying part is this. The judge notes that based on 'Brown', victims cannot consent to GBH. So even if a victim consents to GBH, the inflictor of the injury is still liable. Ok - if that's the case, then even if Natalie consented to having the bottle inserted in her vagina that is irrelevant - the bottle injured her and caused GBH which led to her death.

But the judge quotes another case, and concludes from this (wrongly I think) that women can consent to the insertion of objects into their vaginas and rectums and that EVEN IF this leads to GBH this is not unlawful.

Note what this means. If my male partner begs me to chop his dick off, and I do so, and he bleeds out and dies then I have behaved unlawfully and am liable for his death. Even though he consented this makes no difference - I unlawfully wounded him. But if my female partner begs me to insert a dangerous object in her vagina, and this kills her, then I have not behaved unlawfully and I am not liable for her death. This judge has effectively ruled that so long as you make sure you consensually injure someone's vagina or rectum then you haven't acted unlawfully - how on earth can this be right?

The defence expert obstetrician and gynaecologist, Mr Nicholas Morris, was asked by Mr Vullo whether using lubrication to remove the bottle was a good idea. Mr Morris said that it was a good idea, because it gave you time to think and work out what do to. That answer cried out for the question in cross-examination: ‘Do you think it would have been a better idea to have called an ambulance ?’ That question was never put, but the answer is obvious

I hope no one ever has to be under the care of Mr Nicholas Morris.

As a general side comment - I noticed the errors in the FiLiA item but, because it was quoted from their page, I didn't feel that I should correct it. Should I have [sic]'d it as a more helpful thing to have done than fret about quoting it 'as is'?

I will write to my MP and AG. Thank you for this.

He will not be getting off lightly in this. He deserves to spend a long time behind bars.

I have emailed the AG and copied in my MP.

Just to note, there are a couple of very small typos in that draft letter (fullstop not a comma, words with no spaces) so you might want to proof read before you send.

Arran, the article you reference is from the US so not really relevent here if we're trying to make sense of an English judge's conclusions.

The full paper (which I linked) is based on the issue of consent in several legal jurisdictions with different evidence thresholds. I linked it as part of a wider understanding about issues of consent. England and Wales are explicitly mentioned in the section about The Vicissitudes of Consent .

MacKinnon's political critique of consent covers Western countries.

Given all this, I'm hugely relieved at the verdict and sentence in the Christina Abbotts case:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/21/city-banker-zahid-naseem-jailed-bludgeoning-woman-christina-abbotts-death-pestle

Arran, the article you reference is from the US so not really relevent here if we're trying to make sense of an English judge's conclusions.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (link below) referencing the Sexual Offenses act,

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:
Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent

I'm not a lawyer but it seems clear to me. Happy for any lawyers to explain if I'm missing the point.

I’ve written to the attorney general this morning the leniency in this case is appalling and I cannot understand why the cps did not pursue a murder charge

I’m horrified and disgusted. I have sent emails to the addresses given.

Arran
The famous bdsm case involving a group of 10 gay men which set down the precedent that you cannot legally consent to being significantly harmed, is R. v Brown.

It’s this case:
swarb.co.uk/regina-v-slingsby-crwn-1995/

Which has caused complications with the judgement I think.

I’ve had the odd brush with BDSM stuff, and it’s all quite a bit scary tbh. I think when someone dies or suffers significant injury the person responsible for inflicting it IS culpable.

I refuse to believe there wasn’t some voice in the back of this guy’s head saying “this is a bit much,” I don’t care if he even had consent or not. There are some things you just shouldn’t do to a fellow human being. If you feel the urge to you should get therapy.

I think the earlier email adresse for the attorney general is incorrect.
To request a review you have to email:
[email protected]

Is that defence barrister the same one who defended Rolf Harris? If so he'll take money off any evil bastard won't he?

Basically, accordng to this judge's logic, a women can never be deemed not competent through intoxication to consent.

MacKinnon covers the issue of consent as applied to someone who is comatose:

One cannot not consent when dead, serving to reveal a tacit presumption in some instances that if sex happened, the woman consented to it, so the prosecution has to prove she did not. ...A corpse is certainly acquiescent—seemingly the sexual appeal of rape-murders—as are comatose or drugged or sleeping or otherwise un- conscious49 women. A lifeless body is utterly powerless, death being the ultimate overcoming by the power of the living.
...
The accompanying doctrine of mistaken belief in consent67 further means that if A is found to have believed B consented to sex with him, when she did not, the sex that occurred was not rape. Never mind that in societies saturated with pornography, a lead pipe over the head or its equivalent can sincerely be believed to produce consent to sex. Reasonable belief—what juries or judges think a so-called reasonable person in the position of the accused would have believed68—is a marginally higher standard for the ac- cused to meet than honest belief—what the accused actually believed. But the underlying equality question remains: in societies of sex inequality, why should the defendant’s beliefs, constructed in a rape culture that glorifies and normalizes male force in sexual relations,69 rather than his actions, determine his culpability?

harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/10.2_6_MacKinnon.pdf (pdf)

Point 24 makes me want to scream!!!

Indeed. Basically, accordng to this judge's logic, a women can never be deemed not competent through intoxication to consent.

Letter sent. Bastard.

Point 24 makes me want to scream!!!

"I am sure that Natalie’s motivation arose from the fact that she derived sexual satisfaction by being beaten quite hard"

This is why I would welcome some informed commentary on what is generally understood by the phrase "rough sex" as it relates to people's voluntary experiences rather than something that is coerced or made into a form of entertainment.

I have no insight into how the judge traverses from that assertion into thinking this parlays into consent for what happened to Natalie Connolly.

Thanks for the link @Dottierichardson.

I'm going to have to read it in stages for the sake of my sanity.

Snippets like this make my blood boil:

"I am sure that, apart from the stresses and strains that happen in nearly all relationships, you and Natalie were happy together"

"I am sure that Natalie’s motivation arose from the fact that she derived sexual satisfaction by being beaten quite hard"

How dare a judge presume to be sure about such things?

Referring to Natalie "Professor Jones said he had never seen such high levels of alcohol and cocaine together".

"Your own blood alcohol level was high, at 259 mg per 100 ml of blood at (based on a back-calculation to 3am, and lower still at 6am), but nowhere as high as Natalie’s. It is plain from your account that you were significantly less drunk than she was and you were capable of taking decisions and making choices".

So she was clearly not fit to give consent and he knew what he was doing. He should never have been allowed to cop for the lesser manslaughter charge. It's an outrageous disgrace.

The whole point about consent is that you can’t consent if you are that drunk!!!!

The judge needs to watch consent is like a cup of tea video!!!

I know it's bad form to reverse the sexes, but fuck it, I'm going to. Imagine if a woman was in front of that same judge being sentenced for torturing and killing a man in the same way, what a hefty sentence would have been doled out. That scenario would never happen though, because women don't choke, beat or shoot sexual partners in their orifices to entertain themselves.

Doea anyone know how to get a copy of the court transcript other than applying directly to the court? Is it likely to be in the public domain somewhere?

Secret Barrister and Harriet Harman had an exchange about this on Twitter. The transcript doesn't seem to exist as yet.

Apparently, we should be grateful that we've been able to see an online version of the judge's sentencing remarks...