Another rough sex defence

When we say "in their defence" we mean "as part of their defence, they say that the woman consented to the violence"

I know there is no official "rough sex defence" that can be employed in the same way as the provocation defence once was (aka the nagging and shagging defence). But these claims as part of a defence work, just under half the time. This was a good piece in the telegraph and mail

That's why we're campaigning to move case law into statue so it's actually clear that you can't claim "she asked for it" when a woman has been killed or (as in this case) injured.

Consent was a defence in the Kane Elliot case

Consent is not a legal defence to this charge. He may have said that to the police but that is not the same as a legal defence. It you read the report of the trial, the defence was causation - that he did not cause the wounds that caused death.

Consent was a defence in the Kane Elliot case:
The complainant told the police Elliott cut her with a knife when she refused to do it herself. She described him strangling her while she was on the floor

Kane Elliot "She said she wanted to try some new sex stuff. It got really weird. I did not know what to think. From there it just got violent. Her idea was to involve the violence with the sex. She insisted on strangulation. She just wanted more and more and more."

He seems not to have been charged with strangulation of her even though they both agree he did

It shouldn't even have been allowed to be put forward as a defence, that's the point. Juries don't usually know the ins and outs of the legal system and have to have specific points of law explained to them. I don't know what happened in this case, but they should have been told that it is not possible under UK law to consent to that level of harm

Consent was not put forward as a defence so it isn't correct to say that the judiciary are ignoring the law.

The defence in the Kane Elliott case wasn't consent. It was that she had caused her own injuries.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/kane-elliott-cwmbran-trial-verdicts-17186670

It shouldn't even have been allowed to be put forward as a defence, that's the point. Juries don't usually know the ins and outs of the legal system and have to have specific points of law explained to them. I don't know what happened in this case, but they should have been told that it is not possible under UK law to consent to that level of harm.

That is what the law says. In English law, you cannot consent to be assaulted. Inexplicably, the judiciary ignore this.

When do the judiciary ignore this?

This was a jury trial. It was a decision of a jury not a judge.

WhineUp I've been reading your thread and I have to wonder where these fucking men come from every single time to offer a wide-eyed defence of choking and try to convince us that they only ever did it because their girlfriends wanted them to. They didn't like doing it but what choice did they have? It's all such bullshit. Why exactly do they think they can't say no to sexual acts they're not comfortable with? Luckily, practically everyone else on the thread is calling them out on it, although the "breath play" apologists have also turned up, I see.

I am just reading your thread on AIBU, Whineup. I am trying to formulate something coherent to post but I find it harder and harder these days. I have no patience and no time for these people (not the word I want to use) who jump on threads defending fucking men. It makes me absolutely sick. It's like a war on women from all sides and other women are fighting on the side of the men.

I’m unable to access the website
Hmmm - it's getting plenty traffic through. Feel free to dm me your mobile provider as it might be getting blocked for some reason.

Sorry about that

Perhaps this case could be recorded even though this poor woman thankfully survived?

Yes, we've got a list of women who survive.

There are 100 sample cases we've found of non-fatal assault which is claimed to be "rough sex" by the accused. All the accused are male. There are three high profile "case law" cases: R v Brown (gay men in consensual sadomasochism) and two others which had a female victim.

In every single other non-fatal assault which is claimed to be "rough sex", the victim is female, the accused is male, and the woman says she did not consent to the violence.

we have a briefing on all this wecantconsenttothis.uk/s/WCCTT-briefing-Consent-Defences-2019-09.pdf

What's it called whine, I can't see it.

I've a thread on AIBU on this topic which would greatly benefit from more feminist input.

Sickening - I can’t believe how women are treated in 2019, feels like an onslaught from so many angles.

So I’ll help in any way I can but I’m unable to access the website, unsure if it’s because on my mobile?

Can we do something?

Yes you can - we've got a clarification of the law which Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier (Natalie Connolly's family's MP) have proposed. This was attached to the Domestic Abuse bill and now we are having a general election that bill "falls away". We need election candidates to commit to bring the bill back, and the amendments to end rough sex defences. Please ask your local candidates to commit to doing this.

We've got details here: wecantconsenttothis.uk/actnow

Justice my arse. The system is geared to further traumatise and deter women, while protecting men.

Time and time again juries prove that a man's freedom and reputation is more important than an actual woman or her life.

But no there is no rape culture in the UK and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm at a loss I really am.

Me too.
Can we do something? I don't want my daughter growing up in a world where this happens.

I can’t get over him getting away with this.
Just WHAT would he have to have done to get convicted? Attacked her in the police station ?
No justice for that poor woman.

Seeing tweets suggesting women add I am not into rough sex etc on their Tinder profiles, or adding a clause to their wills saying if I'm found dead with bruises or strangulation marks this was not a sex game and it was not consensual, it was murder

What's happening

The 'we can't consent to this' website is so upsetting. Those poor women. I'm honestly finding this misogyny and violent acts against women more terrifying than anything else at the moment. What's the point in saving the world from climate change if this is the future we are heading towards for women

I also thought this was about Grace.
What message does this send out? I'm at a loss I really am. If any campaigning politician happens to knock my door I may ask them what their view is on the increase in "rough sex" as a defence.

There are certain levels of harm to which a person cannot consent, and anything which constitutes GBH (such as being slashed with a knife) would be included in this. The judiciary know this and have chosen to ignore it. How the hell is this being allowed? And how are we meant to believe that a woman could slash her own back? Didn't anyone look at the wounds and calculate the likelihood that they were self-inflicted?

It is basically now legal for men to seriously assault and kill women, as long as they claim that it was what they wanted. It is the constant stream of cases like this that has informed my decision to stay the hell away from men for the rest of my life, because it is a serious compromise of any woman's personal safety to become involved with them.

"The defendant said he had only known Rhiannon Davies for around two weeks and they had a sexual relationship."

Two weeks.

He accuses her of being violent, but she's the one who ends up running into the street terrified, slashed and strangled.

Coincidentally, I watched a tv programme last night where the murderer used the same defence.

Yes I watched it too.

"The law needs to be changed so that it's always illegal to hit or strangle or injur someone, or do somthing that is likely to injure someone."

That is what the law says. In English law, you cannot consent to be assaulted. Inexplicably, the judiciary ignore this.