We Can't Consent to This: all the "sex game gone wrong" defences

Not sure if this case should be added to the list
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/10/bristol-grime-artist-solo-45-andy-anokye-on-trial-for-22-rapes

Was great to see a Twitter account appear this morning! Good work, Dares.

It seems to me Broadhurst is having it both ways:

• She was so drunk that my beating didn't kill her, the alcohol did. Therefore no murder.
• She was sober enough to consent to the bottle being inserted. Therefore no GBH/assault by penetration.

Yes, this! It's such a contradiction. And to me, it just shows that people (judge/jury) were looking for a way to let him off rather than convict him by not addressing the glaring contradiction.

fucking

WeeBisom so true. So ducking wrong.

So the barrister blogger says it's 'utterly nonsense' that Broadhurst carried out a brutal attack on Nathalie. So how did she come to be so horribly injured? Well, the bruises were there because she asked for it (according to Broadhurst - she's dead, so can't comment). The broken eye socket was because she fell over (according to Broadhurst.) And the arterial bleeding was because he acquiesced to her demand to insert a bottle of cleaning product in her vagina and it hurt her 'by mistake'. It was all just one long series of unfortunate accidents or injuries caused with her consent. Er...is no one else just a tiny bit suspicious about this account? Especially seeing that it's given by the last person who saw her alive, who has a huge motivation to lie about what actually happened that night?

Some other messed up things on this blog:

1. The bruises were not regarded as an intent to seriously cause her harm because she'd suffered similar injuries during consensual sex before.This blogger doesn't seem to realise that this is exactly one of the things we take issue with. She consented to being injured in the past, so she MUST have consented to being injured in this present case. If a woman has enjoyed BDSM activity in the past there is a presumption that injuries are inconsistent with an intent to kill.

2. Something that's boggled my mind about this case is how inserting a bottle of cleaner into a woman's vagina is not regarded as reckless or highly likely to cause injury. In English law individuals cannot consent to actions that are likely to cause them serious harm. So why is this case different?

3. The sentencing guidelines make it clear that beating a woman and inserting a bottle into her vagina isn't serious enough to bump his actions into a category B offence. I'm sorry, but if these actions aren't regarded as 'serious' then I don't know what is.

this is so important i hope the right people listen and never let it happen again, im often astonished at the judges how do they keep jobs with such attitudes and incompetency.

Did the vaginal bleeding not contribute to her death?

It's plausible that it might have done had her death from intoxication not anticipated/pre-empted her death from shock/blood loss. In the latter case, had she died from the bleeding, the charges and consequences might have been very different.

I don't know but I think Natalie's lack of covering, her injuries, her intoxication, and lying on a floor might have made it very difficult to determine time of death beyond a range.

Plus why would she knowingly take excessive alcohol and drugs if she wanted to enjoy the sex?

Nothing adds up unless one understands perpetrator strategic sexualised violence - if that is considered it’s bloody obvious he spiked her drinks etc made sure she was unable to fight back and then tortured her and killed her - in revenge for finding out her communication with another guy.

That’s why the same laws as applied to male criminal violence are not fit for purpose for sexualised violence against women and kids where often it is deliberately carried out covertly without witnesses being present and too often male judges and jurors believe rape myths - the latest one being it was consensual rough sex gone wrong - very bloody convenient for the perpetrator

XXcstatic

As the blog you linked to explains, Natalie's "consent" was relevant to sentencing. It contributed to Broadhurst being given a lower bracket sentence.

What I have difficulty with is that Broadhurst's expensive defence expert said Natalie had the highest combination of alcohol and cocaine he'd ever seen. As a result of which the prosecution couldn't prove the injuries Broadhurst inflicted on Natalie caused her death. However, the judge assumed in Broadhurst's favour that she was not sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to consent to the bottle being inserted.

It seems to me Broadhurst is having it both ways:

• She was so drunk that my beating didn't kill her, the alcohol did. Therefore no murder.
• She was sober enough to consent to the bottle being inserted. Therefore no GBH/assault by penetration.

The CPS couldn't prove that Broadhurst murdered Natalie because she died of alcohol/drug intoxication, not her sexual injuries. That's why I don't think her case is a good focus for a campaign against men using the 'sex game' defence - though I do take the OP's point about the media impact.

there should be a change in the law to make the man culpable if he has reasonable belief the act could lead to serious injury or death

That's exactly what the law currently says.

Surely if it’s impossible to prove that Broadhurst murdered Natelie, given the injuries she sustained that obviously couldn’t be self inflicted nor consented to, plus his callous and remorseless behaviour as witnessed by the paramedics, then the law is an ass where sexualised criminal violence against women is concerned.

Thank you for sharing this, OP. I had no idea how widespread this was, and it's really good that you are bringing more awareness to this.

IMO, it shouldn't be a viable defense- there should be a change in the law to make the man culpable if he has reasonable belief the act could lead to serious injury or death.

Did the vaginal bleeding not contribute to her death?

It's really unclear from the rambling sentencing remarks. However, the reports of the autopsy evidence are that the cause of death was alcohol intoxication, and that the head injuries may have contributed. As far as we can tell from what has been reported of the medical evidence, the vaginal injury does not seem to be been a contributory factor - although it's not surprising that people are confused about this, as the sentencing remarks seem contradictory on this point.

It's just such a warped set of values where it seems he and his expensively purchased lawyers and "experts" (bleurgh) argued that this was consensual

Agree. We don't actually know whether this was argued in court, nor do we know why he was acquitted of GBH and sexual assault. But, like everyone else on here, I"m sure, I found many of the judge's sentencing remarks about Natalie's consent offensive and unnecessary - given that the sentence was for manslaughter by negligence, all the stuff about her consenting seems totally irrelevant and I understand why it has caused such concern.

I'm not sure it is true if she had sufficient drugs or alcohol in her system to make consent problematic

That's why I added "or was incapable of consenting", IG. All the alleged sexual acts, as opposed to the killing, would be a crime if Natalie either did not give consent or was incapacitated, so incapable of giving consent.

The prosecution had to prove either that she did not consent or that she was incapacitated and unable to give valid consent at the time. The problem is that that is extremely difficult - they won't have had evidence of exactly when the drugs and alcohol were ingested; the speed of metabolism and excretion can be affected by many factors; and each individual responds to drugs & alcohol differently. It is incredibly hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt how intoxicated someone was several hours before an autopsy takes place.

Wasn't there actual discussion that she "consented" to the insertion of the carpet cleaner which resulted in the arterial bleeding? It's just such a warped set of values where it seems he and his expensively purchased lawyers and "experts" (bleurgh) argued that this was consensual?

Did the vaginal bleeding not contribute to her death?