"Rough sex defence": CPS won't press charges

There’s a petition on Change about this.

In the type of crimes we are considering, I think the type of manslaughter that would fit the facts would be involuntary rather than through gross negligence. Involuntary manslaughter generally attract a higher sentence.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

Manslaughter due to gross negligence seems a reasonable charge. Assuming they can get life for that.

So what's the charge when a woman is dead, after a man eg strangles her during sex, and he says it was an accident and she consented to be strangled.

From your comments it seems there isn't one that covers her death.

'There IS a defense in these cases - the defendant's defense is that they had no intent to kill [or cause GBH] - intent being one of the cornerstones for a murder conviction.'

In the case of 'rough sex gone wrong' the argument is she consented to GBH and he didn't mean to kill her so not murder.

'Because if you intend to commit GHB ie the section 18 offence (as opposed to the S20 offence) AND the victim dies as a result then that is murder.'

So it can't be manslaughter as by definition what led to it (serious assault that is argued to be consensual) must be murder.

But it can't be murder as per your comment about murder.

So in the case of death during 'sex gone wrong' both a murder charge AND a manslaughter charge cannot be used.

They can* be used in the alternative - but one can not be guilty of the both for the same crime - one is killing (or causing GBH) with intent and the other is killing without such an intent.

• • although as I understand it, a jury - if so directed by the Judge that it can do so - can find a defendant that is only charged with murder, guilty of manslaughter. (the Russian doll analogy - the one inside the other)

You are quibbling while women are dying, I assume you understand that.

No I don't. Please clarify.

I'm quite sure he does understand that.

So in the case of death during 'sex gone wrong' both a murder charge AND a manslaughter charge cannot be used.

Is what you seem to have said.

You are quibbling while women are dying, I assume you understand that.

They never seem to get charged with manslaughter either though. Which can be a life term.

So not sure why only gbh has been flagged.

Because if you intend to commit GHB ie the section 18 offence (as opposed to the S20 offence) AND the victim dies as a result then that is murder.

You can't intend to commit manslaughter - obvs.

They never seem to get charged with manslaughter either though. Which can be a life term.

So not sure why only gbh has been flagged.

It does exist. You can refuse it to call it that. Whatever. But it still has happened that multiple men, such as Graham Coutts, have attempted to use the defence that they killed their consenting sex partner by accident while indulging in a dangerous sex game.

In PMQs today BJ said that the government is looking to end this as a defence (it was a direct question asked).

Shows the contempt that BJ has for PMQs - blah, blah, blah - next question - blah, blah, blah.

No one said it appears in legal textbooks - and there reason for that - because it doesn't exist. You can call distinguishing between fact and fiction, 'splitting hairs' should you want to - as long as you know the difference and want others to know the difference too.

In PMQs today BJ said that the government is looking to end this as a defence (it was a direct question asked).

There IS a defense in these cases - the defendant's defense is that they had no intent to kill [or cause GBH] - intent being one of the cornerstones for a murder conviction.

If rough sex is used as the reason the man was carrying out the act of strangulation or whatever then it can indeed be termed "the rough sex defence". No one said it appears in legal textbooks stop splitting hairs.

Qsandmore I remember your awful experience.

The BDSM "community". Fuck off. If you kill someone in your sex game, you should be liable. The partner on the receiving end is taking a risk, that of being killed, the sadistic partner should consider that they are taking a risk too.

'Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

Yes - it's all concocted'

I see.

evidence was given on both her sexual history, and his defence set out that “the issue is 'did she consent and did Mr Lock believe that she consented?' ..... Lock was found not guilty by the jury, although he was jailed the following year for assaulting his new partner, which was his seventh domestic violence conviction.

FFS, this drives me insane, why is the victim's sexual history taken into account but not the accused?

CPS are a pile of shit. I was assaulted in my home, a neighbour heard me and after I reported and the police did door to door, she told them what she heard.
The person who assaulted me claimed self defence, although this was a lie and no injuries yet I had photos of my injuries
CPS said his word against mine and no further action.

Absolute waste of space.

Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

Yes - it's all concocted. What I'm getting at - exactly - is that there is no such defense as a "rough sex " defense. There IS a defense in these cases - the defendant's defense is that they had no intent to kill [or cause GBH] - intent being one of the cornerstones for a murder conviction. Sometimes the juries are persuaded on the evidence that it wasn't murder and on other times they are not.

What surprises me a little is the extent to which MPs are so gullible. The press ? meh.

Probably shouldn’t be posting this but please see the cropped line from my letter from the police telling me why they weren’t passing my case to the CPS (There was more and worse but too outing) . After the man I barely knew put me in the hospital and decided I was really into being branded and strangled.

Due to a right to review supported by an amazing charity this is now with the CPS (2 years and fucking counting later) but from reading shit like that my confidence they will ever re-attest that man is slim to zero.

Until the next one dies.

Oh and I’m not into BDSM.

You'd best write him a letter to explain, sawdustformypony

Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

PM just said in PMQs that the rough sex murder defence was 'indefensible.'

Is it anything to worry about that the current Prime Minister is so uninformed that he thinks (if indeed, he has even given it any real thought it all - thinking isn't really his forte) that there is such a thing as a 'rough sex murder' defense merely because the press and a number of back-bench MPs have concocted it up in their heads ? Surely the government has legal advisors that are up on this very basic aspect of criminal law ?