Sex Matters and CPS guidance on.consent

ArabellaScott · 2026-09-25T18:42:36+00:00

[[https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/judgment-in-our-case-about-guidance-on-sexual-consent/ https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/judgment-in-our-case-about-guidance-on-sexual-consent/]] Looka like good news.

fanOfBen · 25/09/2026 19:44

Meh, kinda; they're spinning it as a win and it kind of is, but the headline is they lost.

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 25/09/2026 19:44

Judgment dismissed, but CPS agree to make changes.

'Important revisions: After we initiated legal action, the DPP agreed to amend and update its guidance.
CPS guidance criticised: The judges called sections of the guidance that the DPP defended “surprising”, and overly sympathetic towards rape suspects, noting that the text presented suspects as if they were vulnerable persons rather than suspects facing criminal allegations.
Consent is legally complex: The High Court stopped short of declaring the guidance unlawful, but the judges acknowledged that the criminal law concerning consent obtained by deception remains complex.
Judicial review appropriate: The High Court rejected the DPP’s argument that the drafting of the Rape and Sexual Offences prosecution guidance was not the kind of thing that could be challenged by judicial review.
Standing confirmed: The court recognised Sex Matters’ legal standing to bring this challenge, noted our expertise on the legal boundaries of sex and gender and thanked our legal team, Sarah Vine KC and Chris Knight KC (as well as the other side’s legal team) for the “very high quality of the submissions”.'

OP posts:

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 25/09/2026 19:45

fanOfBen · 25/09/2026 19:44

Meh, kinda; they're spinning it as a win and it kind of is, but the headline is they lost.

An improvement at least.

OP posts:

alcovecupboards · 25/09/2026 19:48

This is just another example of Sex Matters putting PR for themselves over actual facts. It isn't a win. By pretending it's a win they are just setting up their own future to manage the outrage when it doesn't come to pass to further their own agenda. Like most Tufton Street organisations they are in it for themselves - not for women as a whole.

MarieDeGournay · 25/09/2026 19:52

I thought this was interesting-
The judges called sections of the guidance that the DPP defended “surprising”, and overly sympathetic towards rape suspects, noting that the text presented suspects as if they were vulnerable persons rather than suspects facing criminal allegations.
Could it be that the 'most marginalised' claim is wearing thin?

Imdunfer · 25/09/2026 19:56

alcovecupboards · 25/09/2026 19:48

This is just another example of Sex Matters putting PR for themselves over actual facts. It isn't a win. By pretending it's a win they are just setting up their own future to manage the outrage when it doesn't come to pass to further their own agenda. Like most Tufton Street organisations they are in it for themselves - not for women as a whole.

After we initiated legal action, the DPP agreed to amend and update its guidance.

Sounds like a win for me.

Your claim that Sex Matters is "in it for themselves - not for women as a whole" is laughable.

There isn't a thing they do that isn't for women "as a whole" whether there are individual women in that whole who want them to do that or not.

Mountainlarch · 25/09/2026 20:21

On the contrary, I alway find Sex matters very transparent when they lose. Even when they win, or when a new guidance comes in, they are always clear about the limitations and the grey areas.

IwantToRetire · 25/09/2026 21:03

Already posted earlier in the day!

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 07:33

It's a win with but caveats, the guidance was withdrawn and the DPP agreeded to update it after SM started their action (a win), the DPP claimed SM didn't have legal standing to bring the action, the DPP were wrong (a win). The court might have ruled that the guidance wasn't unlawful, but its verdict will prevent the DPP from bringing the guidance back in its original form, so the amendments stay (a win).

I found this particularly insightful of the court "It said that the CPS should remember that this document is not intended to be an equalities policy.

So all those organisations that keep hiding their misogynist policies behind claims of equality, values, inclusive blah, blah, blah take note.

Those who can't/won't see this is mostly a win aren't looking at it with unbiased eyes.

Rollingpinofdoom · Yesterday 07:36

alcovecupboards · 25/09/2026 19:48

This is just another example of Sex Matters putting PR for themselves over actual facts. It isn't a win. By pretending it's a win they are just setting up their own future to manage the outrage when it doesn't come to pass to further their own agenda. Like most Tufton Street organisations they are in it for themselves - not for women as a whole.

Still a better win record on women’s rights than the GLP have on trans tights.