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

Hi feminist No -quite the opposite. Consent was irrelevant because the law is absolutely clear that no one can consent to his/her own killing, even in the context of a consensual BDSM game. So it's not that her consent didn't matter because she was assumed to have consented to the sex - quite the opposite: her consent didn't matter because - even if it had been absolutely clear that she had consented to all the sexual acts - he would still have been guilty of murder/manslaughter if his actions led to her death. You cannot consent to being killed.

The problem for the prosecution was the lack of evidence that anything that Broadhurst did caused her death. The primary cause of death was alcohol/drug intoxication, and no one has suggested that he forced her to take the alcohol or drugs. The head injuries may have contributed, but the prosecution were unable to prove that he caused them - which is not as ludicrous as it sounds as it is common for highly intoxicated people to injure themselves. Add to this the high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and it is not surprising that it was hard for the Prosecution to prove murder.

Having said all of this, I am one of the people who has written to the AG to ask for a review of the case. I think the sentence was disgracefully low. And I totally support the OP's campaign against the 'sex game gone wrong' defence.

.

"Broadhurst didn't have to prove that Natalie did consent of course- the Prosecution had to prove that she didn't, or was incapable of consenting."

Is this true? I'm not sure it is true if she had sufficient drugs or alcohol in her system to make consent problematic. I am not a lawyer but I am not sure how a woman could consent to this. My opiniom here, because she died we will never know what she consented to.

Is the conclusion of all this that women who have at any time consented to 'rough sex' can never have any protection from the law as it will always be assumed that they consented to any type of assault that leads to their death - no matter how unbelievable or incredible? Natalie's case will be the 'case law' that proves that these women are always responsible for their own deaths at the hands of men? As frankly, that's how that blog reads to a non lawyer.

I read this last week and thought there would have been someone shouting HEARYE HEARYE WHY ITT IS RIGHT THATT WE MUST SET AFLAME THE WITCHES

Hi OP, I'm saddened if that is aimed at me, because I am most definitely not shouting that.

As you showed in your OP, there have been very disturbing cases of men using the "she wanted it" defence. I have personally treated women (and children ) with horrific sexual injuries and the last thing I want to see is anyone getting away with sexual assault. All I am saying is that it is risky basing a campaign against the 'sex game gone wrong' defence on a case where this was not the defence used.

Though I get your point about the media value of Natalie's case, I think centring your campaign on it will make it easy for MPs and the MoJ to dismiss campaigners as not knowing what they are talking about. However, I hope that I am wrong about this and that you are right, because I really want your campaign to succeed. And I am not defending for a moment anything that happened to Natalie or the derisory sentence handed down.

Hi pigmy - I'm a doctor who does medico-legal work, not a lawyer, so definitely not claiming to be an expert but I understand that the CPS did initially charge Broadhurst with both assault by sexual penetration and GBH, but that he was formally acquitted of both.

Broadhurst didn't have to prove that Natalie did consent of course- the Prosecution had to prove that she didn't, or was incapable of consenting. It would be very difficult to know in retrospect exactly what her alcohol/drug levels were at the time of the vaginal injury, and therefore probably very difficult to prove lack of consent. According to the blog I linked to above, the defence claimed to have evidence that Natalie had shown interest in this type of extreme sexual activity in the past, though we don't know how strong this evidence was, or whether it was presented in court.

XXcstatic thank you for the link to the blog, which is interesting.

Two questions:

• if Natalie was so drunk that intoxication was probably the primary cause of her death, why did the judge accept in Broadhurst's favour that she consented to the bottle being inserted? You couldn't be more intoxicated than she was, so why was it said she could consent? If it wasn't for the judge finding she consented to that, Broadhurst could have been found guilty of assault by penetration/GBH, and/or it would have increased his potential sentence for gross negligence manslaughter
• the judge said that Broadhurst loved Natalie, and that was treated as a mitigating factor in his sentencing. Given what Broadhurst said to the paramedics when sober, why did the judge accept his evidence that he loved her?

OP I think the website is really valuable, and unless there is a satisfactory legal answer to my two questions, I think the Broadhurst case should stay on as an example of the 'sex games gone wrong' argument succeeding in reducing the severity of conviction/sentence.

OP, it is fantastic that you are looking at this issue and I agree that it is deeply worrying that men can evade responsibility for horrible crimes committed in the context of sex.

However, because I want your campaign to succeed, I do think it's important that it is based on fact and there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Broadhurst case.

To prove murder, you have to prove that the injury led to the victim's death, and that the accused intended it to do so. The prosecution in the Broadhurst case was unable to prove either. The primary cause of death was alcohol intoxication. The head injuries may have contributed, but the prosecution was unable to prove that Broadhurst inflicted them. If you can't prove that the accused actually caused the death, it is clearly impossible to prove intent. His conviction for manslaughter was for his negligence in failing to get help for her, not for inflicting any injury on her.

No one argued that Natalie consented to the injuries that contributed to her death.. There is an excellent summary of the reasons for the verdict here

So, although this is a tragic case and has rightly drawn attention to the 'sex game gone wrong' defence - this was not the defence actually used in the Broadhurst case.

I think you need to get a lawyer involved in this unless all you want is a random collection of women who died in a sexual context. What are you hoping to achieve exactly? Are you looking to reverse the legal position to the former prohibition on consensual violence? Are you looking to increase minimum sentencing? Are you hoping to create a higher standard for manslaughter cases within this context? Are you looking to create a higher evidential burden for indivuals seeking to use a sex game gone wrong as a defence?

Thank you OP

WomanDaresTo
Such awful stories and evidently the defence of 'she consented to me brutalising her and murdering her' is being used by men all over the UK and tragically, being believed in some cases. Dreadful.

OMG Gendercritter That is shocking. There should be a database somewhere that you can keep records of screen grabs of these sorts of messages to be used as evidence in the event of future criminal proceedings.

This is awful.

I know a woman who was contacted by someone on a dating site asking her if she would consent to taking a sleeping pill so he could have sex with her when she was unconscious. He jumped straight into asking. Porn has done so much damage. She blocked him and he managed to track down her facebook and started sending her messages there.

Do you think @mumsnethq could invite Harriet Harman to a q & a session on this?
I'm interested that New Zealand has introduced new laws against throttling, the article I read quoted research that this is often a factor in domestic abuse to maintain fear and dominance as well as often escalating to murder.
What happened to the thread about the barmaid who was casually throttled in front of everyone by a co worker? I assume the thread was pulled for legal reasons as police are investigating the man concerned but this case must not be forgotten as it was so blatant and he was clearly a dangerous man for women to be around, he looked like he had done it before and knew exactly what he was doing.
Also someone on that thread mentioned their DD being afraid of a boy at school who talked about doing this but the school were not concerned.

Jesus :(

There needs to be a new criminal offence, committed by intimate partners, leading to death

This!

And it needs to acknowledge that the fact IPV usually involves the perpetrator gaining and abusing the trust of the (usually) woman as an aggregating factor, making the crime more serious, not less, as it seems to be now.

Thank you Italiangreyhound 💐 I do what I can. Sign and share petitions, slate Little OJ on Facebook 😁 and I'm almost ready to throw my hat into the ring on Twitter. I've even peak-transed a few including XH!

The law on this particular category of murder is a mess. It relies on case law to do with negligence, consent, risk taking, incapacity due to drink or drugs and other complicating issues.

There needs to be a new criminal offence, committed by intimate partners, leading to death.

charis "I was young, new, speechless with horror."

"Every time I think of it I feel sick for her and I rage at my cowardice because he frightened me before he even said anything."

Do not feel bad, what could you do. You had no idea who the woman was. People cannot be prosecuted for what they want to do.

I've failed to speak up a few times in the past when I saw things that troubled me. But I think the key thing is to move on.

Campaigning for victims and supporting the rights of the vulnerable in the future is a good way to go. Please do share the petitions if you can.

We must be missing lots as "man kills woman" seemingly doesn't always rate national news.
Few murders make the national news. about two killings a day
Bearing in mind the ones followed up by national press normally report the crime first, then the arrest, then some time later the trial, if every murder/manslaughter case was reported nationally we'd hear about little else.
We hear a bit about knife killings in London (but little detail, it's more of a running total thing) and we hear if children or young women are killed, but there's a clear ranking system of victims in terms of newsworthiness, with exceptions for killings with particularly salacious details.
The parachute sabotage case (fortunately she survived) was one with plenty of salacious detail so we got plenty of coverage on that one.
If only we had a publicly funded broadcaster with a mandate to report all the news, we might hear of all the other crimes.

Good point about local papers. I was at an A.A meeting years ago and a bloke turned up drunk and started talking about how much he thought about putting his hands around his GFs throat when she nagged him. He even made the gesture.

I was young, new, speechless with horror. It did prompt the forbidden "cross talk" when another man strongly suggested he get some help but nothing else was done, and in A.A, confidentiality is key.

Every time I think of it I feel sick for her and I rage at my cowardice because he frightened me before he even said anything.

We must be missing lots as "man kills woman" seemingly doesn't always rate national news.

WomanDaresTo