to think that barristers shouldn't ask this in rape court cases

[brizzledrizzle]

" his barrister, Michelle Heeley QC, asked whether the woman had been "fairly drunk" after drinking wine, prosecco and spirits during a night out in April 2017."

She might as well have asked if it was the woman's fault

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46799539

It is the defence barristers role to defend their client. They will inevitably comment on the sobriety or otherwise of the victim. That doesn’t make it right or the victims fault but it might well be a material fact.
One would never want to blame a victim but there are obviously things that put women knowingly at greater risk. A prosecution barrister mightbask the same to show a woman’s defences were set at a lower level than usual.

Intoxication is relevant to recall and to inhibitions.

Understanding what happened that night includes understanding this aspect too. It’s a fine question. Esp if she uses the too drunk to consent argument.

Agree with pp, it is relevant.

Intoxication is relevant to recall and memory. It doesn't go to credibility.

Huh. The defence barrister also asked if she noticed a difference in size in the men's genitals The victim isn't on trial. It's ridiculous.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/752289/alex-hepburn-rape-trial-joe-clarke-cricket-worcester-latest/amp

It is relevant to recall and vulnerability. Asking what she was wearing would be asking if it were her fault.

One would never want to blame a victim but there are obviously things that put women knowingly at greater risk. A prosecution barrister mightbask the same to show a woman’s defences were set at a lower level than usual
She is not on trial.
Being drunk might also increas the risk of a man raping, as his inhibitions are lower, yet barristers don't get to imply this to the alleged rapist in his trial.
It's misogynistic double standards and suggests the woman is at fault, not the alleged rapist.

The defence barristers job is to introduce doubt that the defendant is guilty. So by making it look like she might not be telling the truth or by making it look like she consented.
That's kind of their job.

It's also the reason a lot of women don't report rapes, which is really sad. Everyone is entitled to a defence though.

You don't want to live in a country where accusation is enough to make you guilty, be thankful we have barristers who are here to protect the principle of defense, in only to ensure the case was investigated throughly, and that there is more than someone words against someone else.

So no, the victim is not at fault, but questions must be asked even if they are unpleasant.

Of course it's fine to ask that. Strange thread.

Actually if she was drunk then she couldn't consent so it is relevant

I have been involved in many cases wher the intoixication of the victim is actually the cornerstone of the prosecution case. Alcohol/drugs consumed by both parties is relevant.

And no, the victim isn’t on trial. But often the account of the victim the only (or if not only, certainly the key) evidence. The issue is one of consent. It is the prosecution’s job to prove the case and it is the defence’s job to challenge the case. So therefore the victim is likely to be challenged on his/her account. It’s not nice at all, but there are protections for the victim, it’s a lot better now than it used to be, and than it Is in other countries.

Huh. The defence barrister also asked if she noticed a difference in size in the men's genitals angry The victim isn't on trial. It's ridiculous.

It's not a question of whether she's on trial. That issue was relevant as the accuracy of her evidence. The fact that a witness is a woman doesn't automatically mean that the courts must assume that their evidence must be 100% reliable. If you are going to say that a defence lawyer in a rape case isn't allowed to test the strength of the prosecution evidence, that is the start of an extremely slippery and dangerous slope.

I’m amazed this case hasn’t been more prominent on MN feminist boards with its resemblance to the Ched Evans case. Too busy discussing trans issues endlessly I guess

Being drunk might also increas the risk of a man raping, as his inhibitions are lower, yet barristers don't get to imply this to the alleged rapist in his trial.

This^^

Asking what she was wearing would be asking if it were her fault.

What a woman wears is her choice, so is drinking alcohol. Is it wrong to rape a woman who is wearing a mini skirt but acceptable to rape a woman who is drunk? If it's not then why is barrister for the accused asking if the woman was drunk? Are we assumed to have consented when we are drunk?

That issue was relevant as the accuracy of her evidence.

As is the case with the accused; he presumably was also drinking and drunk. Might he have thought she gave consent because he was drunk? She isn't on trial, he is so whether she was drunk or not is irrelevant - women shouldn't have to think that they can't go out and have a drink in case they get raped.

The fact that a witness is a woman doesn't automatically mean that the courts must assume that their evidence must be 100% reliable.

Nobody is claiming that.

Actually if she was drunk then she couldn't consent so it is relevant

The barrister for his defence is hardly going to be asking for that reason is she? She's going to be asking as she's looking for a way to get her client off the hook regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty,

Loads of good reasons as people said above - she might be too drunk to consent so the question protects her; so drunk he took advantage; so drunk she cannot remember certain details rather than cannot remember them because she was sober and lying.

We need systems where both sides' stories are tested and checked and we are lulcky to have them. Presumably if people's sons were accused they would want their son to have a fair trial.

To be honest I think it is relevant, purely on the basis that drunk people don't always remember things as clearly, so understandably a defence barrister is going to try and look at it from that angle.

Being drunk might also increas the risk of a man raping, as his inhibitions are lower, yet barristers don't get to imply this to the alleged rapist in his trial

Yes they do. If that is relevant to the prosecution case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop the prosecution barrister putting it to the accused if he gives evidence, and/or making the point in submissions.

What an absolute load of tosh. The question is pertinent and wholly acceptable. Intoxication is a major negative factor in whether a prty has a clear memory.

I hope you do realise some rape allegations aren’t true I am not for one moment passing judgement on this particular case, but to suggest asking such a simple question is wrong is to dismiss any defence of the accused.

What prohibits barristers from asking the accused whether they had been drinking alcohol and whether this may have contributed to them committing the crime?

You do understand the role a defence barrister performs don't you?

OP, if a witness is giving evidence about something, of course the fact that they may have been drunk is relevant. Think about it in another context: a witness gives evidence that, say, they saw a robbery in progress but there is an issue about their identification or the accuracy of their account of events. Can you really say that their evidence has to be taken as 100% reliable even if in fact it emerges that they were drunk at the time? If you were wrongfully accused in those circumstances, would you really think it OK if your defence lawyer was unable to cross-examine the witness about whether they could really remember what they saw in those circumstances?

Intoxication can work both ways in a rape trial. It can help the prosecution as it increases vulnerability or it can help defence as it blurs memory.
It is relevant and important.
No-one is blaming the victim, they are trying to establish the facts in the case.