No person can consent to their own death, or to injury to cause death

There was no evidence that he caused Connolly's death. His conviction was for being negligent in leaving her on the floor instead of calling for medical assistance.

Her post mortem said she died from a combination of alcohol intoxication and her blunt force injuries. Injuries which he caused but said that she had 'consented to'.

He admitted manslaughter by gross negligence because he couldn't really deny the fact that he had left her dying at the bottom of the stairs for hours. Even though apparently he hadn't meant to hurt her so badly that she would die

Wait, no evidence he caused her death? That's clearly bollocks surely.

RIP all those murdered by these evil and depraved men.

Yeah sorry, not buying it that all these murdering fucks go down for manslaughter. Many of them seem to be getting away with it entirely. What John Broadhurst did to Natalie Connolly - what do you think happened there Sawdust for him to get such a paltry sentence? Are we supposed to think it didn’t make a difference that he claimed (successfully) that she asked him to do the terrible things he did to her? Her sexual history was raked over in court as well. All part of the “rough sex gone wrong” playbook.

1. Claim the victim wanted it and the poor man was just doing as he was asked
2. Paint the victim in as damning a light as possible, rake over her sexual history and do everything you can to make her out to be a depraved sex-crazed temptress
3. Cast doubt liberally on the victim’s character. Bonus points if you can find a good “excuse” for your behaviour, like she was texting another man or planning to leave you
4. Open your eyes wide and tell the court you’ve no idea how she died. One minute it was all consensual fun and light “breath play”, the next; she was just dead.
5. Get away with murder.

I don’t have faith that our (UK) legal system does right by women. We are seeing rape effectively decriminalised and the growing spate of cases where the defence successfully uses “rough sex gone wrong” tells me that something has gone terribly wrong in the system. I’d like to see our courts hand down more verdicts like the one given in NZ for Grace’s murder.

Look at We Can’t Consent to This. It’s horrifying to see all the cases laid out like that.

It's porn, definitely. I missed the whole 50 Shades thing but I don't think it featured choking, just spanking and restraints and shit like that. For me, anyway, blaming a bunch of crap books that were mainly read by women is a way of blaming us for getting killed. "I thought it was what she wanted, yer honour. She liked reading about rough sex so I thought she wanted me to strangle her and throw her down the stairs".

John Broadhurst

There was no evidence that he caused Connolly's death. His conviction was for being negligent in leaving her on the floor instead of calling for medical assistance.

You do, for manslaughter - maximum sentence is 'life'.

Or 3 years and 8 months like John Broadhurst. Granted that wasn't choking, that was being thrown down the stairs and suffering massive internal injuries from having a trigger bottle of carpet cleaner inserted into your vagina, but still 'rough sex gone wrong apparently'.

And he was allowed to appeal his sentence as well.

'Life' my arse.

One huge difference between then and now though was that choking during sex was just. Not. A. Thing. Among young people. At all really

Why is it now? Is it porn, fucking 50 shades of crap?

And if you 'accidentally' kill your partner while choking them during sex then you go to prison, tough shit

You do, for manslaughter - maximum sentence is 'life'.

I really think that choking during sex should be made illegal.

I totally agree actually. And if you 'accidentally' kill your partner while choking them during sex then you go to prison, tough shit. It's the risk you take when you restrict another person's airways for sexual kicks.

So pleased about this verdict. I do worry that our young women have been brainwashed into thinking they have to like this sort of fringe stuff to be exciting sexual beings. I am in no way sexually naive but I would never allow someone to practice erotic asphyxiation on me but from the evidence in this case I can only assume it is

Yes I agree. It does seem, from what I have gleaned from social media, that if you are not into choking etc you are a 'prude'. Which I think is quite terrifying actually.

I remember being just like Grace. Her Twitter is still open and her tweets really remind me of my early twenties self. I turned 22 whilst travelling the world, I had such a great time.

One huge difference between then and now though was that choking during sex was just. Not. A. Thing. Among young people. At all really.

It saddens me that it is now. Granted I have never tried it, maybe its really amazing, but people managed to have great sex for a very long time without being choked by their partner and didn't have to worry about it 'going wrong' and ending up dead.

BadgertheBodger. Sorry I didn't see your post, as I was writing to Goosefoot. My point is set out in that post.

I really think that choking during sex should be made illegal. Even if it is done with no intent to harm and both people agree, it is just very dangerous.

Hi Goosefoot the level of harm that you can lawfully inflict during sex only extents to that equal to the level of common assault. The injury above that such as ABH, GBH and death are definitely illegal.

I think what confuses people is that the defendants in these cases are saying they did not 'intent' to kill - and therefore it wasn't murder. What is not disputed by the defense is that that defendant is guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Sawdust what’s your point? In the UK there have been too many men already who have got away with killing their partners and using the “rough sex gone wrong” defence.

I really think that choking during sex should be made illegal. Even if it is done with no intent to harm and both people agree, it is just very dangerous.
I suppose the element that could be difficult to manage would be defining what counts and also how you would determine that it happened. Presumably the intent would not be to stop people from touching their partner's neck at all, and we would not want people claiming that something happened when it didn't. But unless there was some evidence that it did beyond the testimony of the people involved, which would probably be bruising or something, it would be hard to show - so maybe that would really limit it to cases where something very rough happened?

That would be good, it might not influence people much who didn't see what they were doing as dangerous, but maybe it would still cast it in a different light. People used to realise that this kind of activity was risky. What would be really good IMO is if it meant that it was no longer found in porn, but that seems unlikely given how international online porn is. But I think a lot of people are influenced that way.

I guess it makes sense that there is a need to negotiate the legal limits of consent. There's been a social tendency for a while to give more and more room to individuals decisions as the arbiter of what is ok, not just in sexual matters but generally. I think it's coming up against limits in many contexts.

....cos if you think you can consent to your own death (under UK law) - you wouldn't be holding your breath. So.....

I’m really happy that this judge has stated you can’t consent to your own death.I’m not holding my breath for this to translate to our own courts sadly

and your understanding of the law in the UK is ?

Really pleased to see this on twitter this morning. The right result.

Rest in peace Grace. Hope her family find some way of finding closure.

So pleased about this verdict. I do worry that our young women have been brainwashed into thinking they have to like this sort of fringe stuff to be exciting sexual beings. I am in no way sexually naive but I would never allow someone to practice erotic asphyxiation on me but from the evidence in this case I can only assume it is increasingly common.

Poor grace. RIP.

Not to mention the fact @EoinMcLovesCakeJumper that NZ has once of the worst DV rates in the world. Not sure how Ardern considers it safe - it's a very dangerous country for women indeed.

Excellent comment, *EoinMcLovesCakeJumper. Male pattern violence is the problem so many find unspeakable, because halt that and the whole patriarchy comes tumbling down.

Thank goodness. I was worried he was going to get manslaughter or less from all the details coming out in the press. Maybe I'm just used to the so called justice system here in the UK. This case needs to set a precedent as sadly I doubt this will be the last of its kind.
He was named and pictured when he was first taken in as a suspect and its still visible online so it's strange he's still got 'anonymity' now.

I thought NZ had a policy of not naming defendants to avoid them being glorified by the weirdos and nutjobs out there. Too often, our (British) media leave the victim anonymous and dehumanised yet make the murderer sound like some kind of hero.

Apparently that hotel he lived in was one that 'hosts' people on parole..

The chilling thing is that this could very well have gone the other way.

Thanks, 3rd wave feminists.

A news report I heard yesterday failed to mention that he went shopping for a suitcase to put her body in, went on another tinder date the next day, and took pictures of her naked body after he had killed her. If that was the news report someone was hearing for the first time, you could easily believe he was innocent. I was disgusted they had left out so many vital pieces of information.