There’s obviously still confusion over what rape is and why one was convicted and the other wasn’t.
Penetration by a man is rape if consent is not given or if consent is forced. Legally certain groups are recognised as being unable to give consent, i.e children, people with learning difficulties, people who are incapacitated. Being drunk is being incapacitated.
There is however a defence available to any man accused which is simply that he asserts that he held a reasonable belief that consent had been given. This consent can be verbal or by actions.
What the jury has to do is consider two issues –
1 Was she incapacitated and therefore deemed to be incapable of consent ?
2 If so, did either man hold a reasonable belief that she had consented ? And if the answer is yes, then they must be found not guilty.
The jury in this case appear to have come to the conclusion that she was incapacitated and therefore not capable of giving consent. The question then turns to what happened to make either man believe that she had given consent. Obviously if she was so drunk that she was unconscious, this question is easy to answer – she’s done nothing and such a belief would be unreasonable. Unfortunately the victim appears to have been drunk enough to be confused but not too drunk to communicate.
The interaction with CM, whilst borderline, appears to have given a jury enough evidence that he had reason to believe he did have consent. They have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he didn’t which is quite a high hurdle so their verdict makes sense based on her condition, her actions and what the law actually says.
CE has a serious difficulty however in proving that he believed she consented. He had spent no time with her and was not in a position to assess her condition. He had no obvious reason to travel to the hotel in the first place, he broke into the hotel room, he didn’t announce his presence initially, he didn’t introduce himself, he changed his position on whether he asked her or CM if he could join in, he left by a fire escape.
CE has found guilty because he had sexual intercourse with someone incapable of consenting AND had no reasonable belief that she had consented. All of which he has admitted to – he simply doesn’t believe that this constitutes rape.
So drunken women are not given a free pass to cry rape simply because they are drunk and men are not found guilty of rape simply because of a victim’s incapacity. It would obviously be prudent of men to ensure that they don’t have sex with women who are drunk, not just because of the potential legal ramifications but because it’s the decent thing to do. CE appears to know neither the law of the land nor the decent thing to do.
CE remains a danger to women whilst he remains un-rehabilitated. The legal system has punished him but now expects him to be rehabilitated so gives him a window of opportunity to do so. He is choosing to reject that opportunity and it is entirely right that society condemns him for failing to complete the second part of the process. Giving tacit support to a campaign that hounds his victim, refusing to accept the reality of his crime, seeking to reengage in a high profile profession are all indicative of the fact that this man is far from rehabilitated or indeed is capable of it.
I’m not standing at his front door baying for blood, I’m not saying that he should never work again. I’m asking that CE is forced to comply with the criminal justice system and our idea of punishment and integration instead of thumbing his nose at it and being rewarded for doing so.