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

court decisions since have diluted its effect

Please cite some court cases showing this actually happens - from BAILII not the Daily Mail, so that we can all read the court's decisions and the reason given.

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

Maybe Cruella the AG could get up off her arse and do something about it?

That's awful anxiousannies
The odds are continually stacked against women.

I was unable to get the police to take action against my abusive husband "because you haven't reported it three times" so being raped once doesn't warrant any action, I had to wait and endure two more rapes which I apparently consented to. I appear to have also consented to the subsequent abuse for having reported him.

Doesn't suprise me in the slightest after the experience i had with CPS over some very serious allegations regarding STBXH the police had concrete evidence and knew he was guilty as sin yet soon as they handed over to CPS they came back with those exact same words I'm still pursuing it to this day because while men like my ex are on the streets women are not safe and if anything the CPS have just stroked his ego into thinking he can get away with it again if not worse!

Fucking hell

Well there we go

We all knew it

Rape and murder of women and girls is essentially legal

'i thought she wanted it m'lord'

Ok off you go son.

Not that it ever gets to court if this is cos stance.

If I was a young woman today, I would seriously consider lodging a sworn, witnessed statement with a solicitor "to be opened in the event of my death" saying "I only like consensual, loving sex. I do not like rough sex. If my body is found in circumstances which suggest I have been killed during or shortly after sex, be aware that I would never have consented to this."

FannyCann I am v pleased - they can send us the pic via social media channels as we love seeing them and also need some official models [unpaid].

The good(?) outcome here is that in this letter, the CPS have confirmed for us that the current law does not work.

And Harriet Harman has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to demand he intervene in this woman's case - sharing her story will absolutely have made a difference to other women, and I hope that she gets the outcome she needs.

hugely agree CPS approach to stats is focusing on the WRONG metrics - high successful prosecution rate is no use to anyone if you only prosecute a tiny number of reported cases.

Link to the shop for T shirt buyers!

wecantconsenttothis.teemill.com/collection/shop-all/

Another aspect to this is that this is about the CPS and their stats. ie because they are aware of male prejudice against women they suspect the women wouldn't be believed and they dont want a lost case on their tally for the year.

Part of the vicious circle that means for women it isn't simple about justice but about whether the male view of the world can be sufficiently challenged to secure women's rights.

We know that the CPS use this assessment when deciding which cases of rape to take to court.

To them it is just about their data.

@WomanDaresTo
I sent three We Can't Consent to This T shirts to my daughter and her friend and BF who have been locked down together in their flat at uni.
Her friend just sent me a lovely thank you letter -
"Thank you so much for the T shirt...the campaign is so important and I'm keeping up to date with the developments on their social media platforms". I had a nice photo of them all proudly wearing the Ts too, but obviously can't post.

Thank you for all you're doing - even last year when you started this I didn't imagine the CPS taking disgraceful decisions like this one.

God it is shocking how we have gone back in time to all this shit.
It seems like a dream, and I can't remember when those times were, perhaps it's a figment of my imagination but I'm sure I remember a time when the CPS was worried about the poor conviction rates in rape cases, and there was publicity about issues like whether the woman had capacity to consent eg being too drunk to consent = rape.

That poor woman.

What a shit analogy tackling is for sex. Unless there is a kind of sex between 2 men where they each try to be the one to fuck the other first?
For another day but SO MUCH of legal thinking is based on the idea of men scuffling outside a hostelry, or engaging in contact sports like rugger, or even gay men in consensual sadomasochism*

It does not read across to men committing acts of serious and sustained intimate violence against women.

*this was the case law that decided consent is no defence to serious injury, the one that the CPS think the courts will soon overturn.

I thought sexual history was supposed to be inadmissible except in extraordinary circumstances.

It's admissible in common assault, ABH, GBH, manslaughter, murder - so any rough sex claim in a violence charge can result in sexual history and her name being published in the news

What a shit analogy tackling is for sex. Unless there is a kind of sex between 2 men where they each try to be the one to fuck the other first?

Evidence given on her sexual history...

Are they now suggesting a women who previously had sex, wanted it, enjoyed it, has no defence to later abuse??

I thought sexual history was supposed to be inadmissible except in extraordinary circumstances.

JFC.

And then we wonder why hundreds of girls in the UK are frantically trying to find a way out of having to grow up female in this society.

Absolutely.

Although consent should have been no defence to this ABH charge, 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?' Is this an assault any more than a mistimed tackle in football?”.

Fucking appalling

sorry [2013]

link

It's MINDBENDING. We're finishing our research doc on this but this is an example of what happens in non-fatal assaults

In Lock [2016] , the accused’s defence to assault causing ABH was that she consented to being beaten with a rope as part of a master slave arrangement, inspired by “Fifty Shades of Grey”. Although consent should have been no defence to this ABH charge, 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?' Is this an assault any more than a mistimed tackle in football?”. 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.

and be able to say the woman consented.

I honestly, honestly don't understand this. The woman is right there (well, unless she was murdered, as has happened all too often) - you can ask her if she consented. It's like being back in the dark ages - a woman's word counting only half a man's

I genuinely don't understand this. It seems to suggest that the CPS don't want to outlaw the "rough sex gone wrong" defence?

There is existing case law which says that you cannot use consent as a defence to serious injury, but court decisions since have diluted its effect. We (WCCTT) have said throughout that case law is not up to the task it is being put to.

The CPS have said in this UNBELIEVABLE letter that because the courts seem to want to overturn that case law, the CPS will not prosecute this case because the man will likely win, and be able to say the woman consented.

And because there will be lengthy evidence in court of the sex and violence she is supposed to have consented to (the CPS are currently right on this latter point).

We are asking for law change - so for parliament to make the law clear on "rough sex" defences, rather than leaving it to the courts, and this CPS letter shows why this is needed.

The CPS are appalling on women's and girls' rights.

The letter from the CPS to the alleged victim in the assault case stated: “A prosecution could follow in relation to this offence, but the courts have shown an interest in changing the law so that the suspect could say that you consented to these assaults. This would be difficult to disprove,” citing the specifics of the case.
Last time I looked it is parliament that changes laws not courts. Whoever wrote this should be sacked.
It's not in the public interest, no only 50% of the public's interest. This is institutional misogyny.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

So it doesn't matter what a woman says, she can be black and blue and bloody, but if the bloke says 'she wanted it' he's the one believed.

I don't know why I'm surprised after the recent cases - but at least those got to court.

We don't know what a woman is, but we know exactly who can be beaten and raped with no consequence.