To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

[corkysgran]

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

Reading through these threads I am ashamed to admit that I myself may have been guilty of sexual assault (not rape as I don't have a penis). Many moons ago when seeing a guy we spent the night together/ had sex together the next morning I decided to wake him up by giving him a blow job. He didn't mind at all, but had not consented to this before I did it and was definitely asleep when I started. Would that be considered sexual assault? Genuine question!

Since he had consented (presumably) to sexual activity in the very recent past, then no, if I was on your jury. You had reasonable belief in his consent.

Though, how many moons? you might need to dust off a previous statute book

Oh about 17 year's worth of moons rootypig. I was 19 or so. I wouldn't do it now unless my partner had said beforehand they liked/wanted it! (apart from the fact that I have more important things to do in the morning, like getting the kids ready for school)

We were in a relationship of sorts, not a long term one, more of a fling, but it wasn't a ONS or anything.

Good to hear you would aquit me!

"Would that be considered sexual assault"

No.

Had you broken into the room next door and tried to do that to somebody you had never met before, yes.

Actually, that's an interesting point to all those saying the the verdicts are inconsistent. If you take CM out of the equation and imagine the victim had been in that room alone, then ask yourself if it was acceptable for someone (CE in this case) to get himself a key to a stranger's hotel room and let himself in and begin having sex with her less than two minutes later?

Yes it would. Previous consent can never be the basis for reasonable belief in consent if a person is unconscious. As it happens, in the case you describe, your partner was fine with it; and lots of couples do it and both are fine with it so no one ends up in court and it is no problem. Technically though, it is against the law, so if you do it to someone, they are entitled to complain.

Oh my mistake, CE performed oral sex on complainant, not the other way round. So she may well have been unconscious at that point. Only his word to say she wasn't.

Interestingly the night porter said that when he listened a the door, he heard a male voice asking for oral sex, but there is no mention at all of either man even asking for oral sex or her giving it to them in either man's evidence. probably because she didn't end up giving him a blow job because she was nigh on unconscious

It also says on the website that 'it is worth noting' that the victim knew that 'licking out' means male on female oral sex - I mean, it's hardly specialist is it, everyone knows what that phrase is, it means nothing.

His website just wants to perpetuate the myth that only people who have never been sexually active can be raped.

Fwiw I decided to continue dating the chap I'm currently casually dating based on his view point of CE he said to me "the mans a rapist who shows no understanding of consent he is still a danger to society who should still be in prison and should not be employed as a role model" I don't drink alcohol but if I did I feel a lot safer with men like him in my life as I do just in general interactions.

licking out

Christ, it's about fifteen (very pleasant years) since I heard that regrettable phrase.

Previous consent can never be the basis for reasonable belief in consent if a person is unconscious.

Doubtful. The evidential presumption against reasonable belief is rebuttable, and an ongoing consensual sexual relationship is vital context for a sexual act. Is there a case to this effect?

I have got to this point without looking at his unspeakable website. I don't know if my brain can take the blood pressure spike.

I wouldn't risk it Rooty, you can't unread something . Although the photos are quite funny- Ched holding babies, walking his dog etc. To make him look like a normal , caring bloke I presume.

Rooty

Just think of every rape myth you can think of and that's about the summary of the evans' website.

One thing I would like to ask about the website though, they give a breakdown of how many visits are from men and how many from women, now does my IP address change if a male friend uses my computer?

I think you can tell this kind of thing from google analytics - but you also need to display a privacy policy? Don't want to visit the site to find out what this is all about.

No the test is not 'did you reasonably believe that your partner would have consented had they had the capacity to do so?' It is 'did you reasonably believe at the time in question that they consented? If at the time in question, the person was unconscious, you cannot reasonably have believed that they consented.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.

Sorry to be dim, but Somebody, are you referring to CE or CM in your 'reasonable belief' posts?

Somebody if your reading of Bree is right (several years since I've read), when is the evidential presumption against consent in the case of unconsciousness rebutted (as the statute makes provision for?)

subject to the defendant's state of mind
but you've just argued there can be no reasonable belief in consent in that case

But her first line is No the test is not 'did you reasonably believe that your partner would have consented had they had the capacity to do so?', which sounds as though she's replying to someone who's made that assertion.

I'm just wondering if it's in response to a specific post, as I can't find it.

I have always been highly about CE's claim that he performed oral sex on the victim. It seems very unlikely considering she had just had intercourse with his friend and was probably almost unconscious by this point. It seemed to me a very cynical convenient way to "prove" that she was consenting and that CE was concerned about her sexual satisfaction

Only she is replying to me, though I wouldn't agree that that was the test I was setting out.

I think we can also think usefully draw a distinction between initiating a sexual act with someone who is unconscious, which is common in consensual sexual relationships, and performing a sexual act on someone who remains unconscious, or continuing a sexual act on someone who withdraws consent once conscious, both of which cases are clearly rape / sexual assault.

Well the victim in Bree wasn't asleep, so that's a bit misleading. I suppose if you were having sex in the dark and your partner was very tired and during the act he or she fell asleep and you didn't realise for a few seconds, you could say you reasonably believed during those seconds that they were consenting.

Either you're arguing that there can be reasonable belief (in the case of unconsciousness) or not. In your first post, you say
"If at the time in question, the person was unconscious, you cannot reasonably have believed that they consented." and then subject to the defendant's state of mind - how can these be reconciled?

I'm not a lawyer, I just can't see how this reading of Bree leaves room either for the intent of the statute (in creating a rebuttable presumption) or the fact of everyday sexual relationships.