Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 10 11

Original poster

to think "being drunk" is no defence for raping someone

259 replies

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 12:15

i'm absolutely shocked by this case where a man has been acquited of raping a woman because he was so drunk he thought she was his girlfriend and didn't realise he was in the wrong bedroom.

this is so so wrong. how many men will now use "being drunk" as a defence?

not only this but according to the article the girlfriend had earlier said she was too ill for sex. plus the victims phone was found dismantled in the mans sock when he was arrested.

how can this happen?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363964/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-said-thought-I-BRUNETTE-girlfriend.html

OP posts:

TotemPole · 08/03/2011 12:22

It's hard to believe that she didn't wake up earlier, don't you think?

EldritchCleavage · 08/03/2011 12:25

I think him getting off has less to do with the law (being drunk is NOT a defence) and more to do with some very worrying attitudes on the part of the jury.

KnittedBreast · 08/03/2011 12:25

i agree with totempole. how you can not wake up when someones shagging you is beyond me

Original poster

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 12:25

no TotemPole i don't think that at all. some people are just heavy sleepers and she might have been sleeping off some drinks herself.

i'm not quite sure what you are suggesting?

OP posts:

Original poster

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 12:26

quite a few abused women on the relationships threads have told of waking up to find their husbands having (nonconsensual) sex with them. it's not up to the victim to justify why they didn't wake sooner.

OP posts:

bullet234 · 08/03/2011 12:27

He wasn't shagging her.
He was raping her.
And yes, maybe she did wake up before hand. And maybe she was absolutely bloody petrified because some man had come into her room whilst she was asleep and started raping her.

TotemPole · 08/03/2011 12:32

He took her clothes off and she didn't wake up.

Yes, she could have been sleeping off some drinks too.

Why has she waived the right to annonymity?

ZZZenAgain · 08/03/2011 12:33

how drunk could he have been to fully undress her? She says she went to bed fullyclothed because she felt so cold. How drunk could he have been to have dismantled her telephone and put it in his sock?

And even if he was so drunk that he did not know it was not his girlfriend, iti s no excuse. His girlfriend had apparently already told him anyway that she felt too ill for sex so if it had been his girlfriend who was feeling sick, who he undressed and her in her sleep, why is that ok?

He should have been convicted. Disgraceful.

E320 · 08/03/2011 12:35

I always thought that if men were "that" drunk they couldn't get it up anyway.

mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 12:36

In this it is not that being drunk is a defence to raping someone. It will be that the jury agreed with the argument that he lacked the intent/mens rea for the crime due to the mistaken identity.
It's a shocking decision but it does not set a precedent of drunkeness being a defence to rape.

TotemPole · 08/03/2011 12:36

Fair point.

But, I don't think he got off just because he was drunk. It's the DM, we're probably not getting the full story.

Original poster

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 12:38

mayorquimby - so you could use mistaken identity as an excuse?? that's possibly even worse....

how depressing.

OP posts:

StealthPolarBear · 08/03/2011 12:38

Why did he dismantly her phone and hide it - how does that fit into his "girlfriend" argument (which I agree, even in itself would have been unacceptable).
Why on earth was he acquitted?

mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 12:39

"Why has she waived the right to annonymity?"

So she can highlight what a shocking decision it was and hopefully use the media interest in her side of the story to affect a change in the publics attitude to rape.

ZZZenAgain · 08/03/2011 12:40

I think really it is up to you to ascertain the identity of the person you are with really and to be aware of whether this is consentual sex (how can you know if someone is asleep?). How is that a mitigating point that you thought you were on top of another sleeping woman? And anyway the girlfriend was not consentual because she had told him already she did not feel well enough for it. Not that anyone seems to care about that point but still seems relevant to me at least

sethstarkaddersmackerel · 08/03/2011 12:41

unfortunately, rapists getting off in cases that should be open-and-shut guilty verdicts is really common.

there's a popular misconception that the cases where rapists get off are the 'her word against his' ones where there wasn't really any evidence either way. In fact those cases don't generally get to court or often aren't even reported so they aren't included in the statistics; generally the ones that get to court are the ones like this where there is plenty of evidence, often violent ones with lots of injuries to the victim. But research shows juries are still very reluctant to convict a man of rape even where the evidence is extremely strong, and where for any other crime a conviction would have been easy. They give the man a lot of benefit of the doubt and generally treat it as if the rule is 'beyond any shadow of a doubt' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It doesn't help that victims still regularly have their sexual histories brought up in court while men with violent histories often don't have their previous crimes mentioned.

this is shocking and very sad, but I wish I could say it was surprising.
this kind of thing is part of the reason why we were marching in London at Million Women Rise on Saturday. And for many of us it is why we are feminists.

mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 12:43

"mayorquimby - so you could use mistaken identity as an excuse??"

It's not that it's an automatic defence, but it could be used as an argument by the accused to prove that they lacked the mens rea of the offence.
If the jury accept that then there's nothing the law can do about that really is there?

"Why did he dismantly her phone and hide it - how does that fit into his "girlfriend" argument (which I agree, even in itself would have been unacceptable).
Why on earth was he acquitted?"

that seems like the behaviour of someone who is aware of their guilt to me as well. The only people who can answer why he was acquitted is the jury.

TotemPole · 08/03/2011 12:44

What do they mean by dismantle, take the battery out? That is odd.

I also agree that it would be difficult for him to undress her and get it up if he was that drunk.

What's the difference between acquitted and found not guily, can someone remind me please?

mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 12:49

"I think really it is up to you to ascertain the identity of the person you are with really and to be aware of whether this is consentual sex"

I'd agree with regards to the identity point, but there are also cases of women having consensual sex with people who they thought were their husbands/boyfriends due to a mistaken identity (although this is sometimes due to some deception on the part of the man) which has lead to the man involved being convicted of rape. This may be a reason against giving such directions with regards to mistaken identity. Because if you were to put such an onus on the man in this case, then it would be arguable that in cases where a man has allowed a woman to believe that it was her boyfriend/husband that she was engaging in consensual sex with she too would have an obligation to ascertain the identity of the other person and if she had not fulfilled her obligation then the man would be in the clear.

As I say, this is only a personal hypothesis/logic for such directions not being employed.

LaWeasel · 08/03/2011 12:50

Unless there is something major not being reported it does sound like a horribly biased judgement.

Even if he didn't know it was her, he was still basically intending to rape his girlfriend. Why should he be let off because he raped the wrong woman?

ZZZenAgain · 08/03/2011 12:51

he says (according to that article) that she touched him a manner that indicated to him that she was willing and so he thought it was an ok sign from his girlfriend

ZZZenAgain · 08/03/2011 12:52

whole thing is a bit odd if you just look a t what the article says. Maybe there is something missing from it which make it a bit clearer

wannaBe · 08/03/2011 12:52

the mistaken identity is something that baffles me tbh. If he'd gone back to his own room and had sex with his sleeping girlfriend who had clearly stated earlier she did not want sex, she had then woken up and decided to press charges, does that mean it couldn't be considered as rape? Surely if you're having non consentual sex with a woman then it is rape, regardless of whether the woman is a stranger or your usual (otherwise consenting, except on this occasion) partner.

Although I am curious as to how he got into her room? Most hotel rooms open with a key card - so how did he get in?

ZZZenAgain · 08/03/2011 12:54

it is a small hotel - just a few rooms above a pub I think if you look at the photo on that article

Original poster

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 12:55

"Most hotel rooms open with a key card - so how did he get in"

from the photo it looks more like a pub with rooms than a proper hotel. quite likely you had to lock with a latch from inside and maybe she had forgotten to do this.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 10 11