A list of seemingly unbelievable not-rapes (according to the CPS and juries)

[AdamRyan]

Inspired by this news where someone who reported a rape and was told they might have sexsomnia

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63116989

So these are other notable cases I can think of:

The man who tripped and penetrated someone
www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html%3famp

The man who got the hotel room muddled up
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/amp/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html

The man who thought a girl who was moments before having sex with his friend must also want it with him, even though he was so tired he had to go to bed while his friend was getting viagra
www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/black-student-cleared-night-time-7951757

The man who thinks asking a friend "can I have a go [on her]?" is enough consent www.google.com/amp/s/thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/amp/

I'm so tired of it.

deepwatersolo
You will always have horror stories and adjudications when you go to court - especially when you allow a jury to make the final judgement. But, from a police & CPS point of view there are case laws which cover drunkenness and consent. R v Malone, R v Laing, R v Bree - off the top of my head. In essence, there will be sufficient to charge if its clear that the victim could not give consent due to intoxication and that the suspect should have known that this was the case.

picklemewalnuts
I agree with you that at present the whole judicial system appears not fit for purpose - and obvious non consensual sex should not be excused. But it seems that its done to a jury to weigh up the case and come to its conclusion.

Maybe, trials should not be heard by a jury and just by a judge - or 2-3 judges. i think by and large police & CPS will look to charge on rape incidents unless there is significant evidence against it.

It happens a lot in cases (not just rapes) when they go to trial though - bizarre conclusions come at the end of them. I have loads of personal experiences of them to know that court cases are usually 50/50 in finding the truth and getting justice.

What I am asking on here is what the answers could be to make it better?

I remember this. JFC. The defence counsel was a WOMAN.

I also find this completely frustrating. In any other scenario yes - you’d be at fault. But rape - no??

This doesn't work, partly because women are allowed to change their minds. That written document would then be their undoing.

Also do we really want to legislate against spontaneous sex? How often would this written consent be required? Would there need to be explicit sections for various types of sex.

Maybe we need a separate offence category related to not being certain enough about consent. Most of the examples people have given above are rape, no doubt about it. But some of the ones that were not convicted, and multiple others that weren't prosecuted, could be convicted of a lesser charge and put on the sex offenders register.

Most of the examples people have given above are rape, no doubt about it. But some of the ones that were not convicted, and multiple others that weren't prosecuted, could be convicted of a lesser charge and put on the sex offenders register.
Exactly. I agree

What would be that lesser charge though?

Inattention to consent.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Well Felix, Case Law only gets you so far when the acting people from police to courts are invested in finding or conjuring up any possible loophole to prevent conviction.

Also, as a previous poster said this will be used against the victims. While the lack of such a form will easily be explained away by some ,heat of the moment‘ uttering, its presence, even if signed years before the rape or under the influence, with the rapist moving the woman‘s limp hand or signed under duress or forged will be used as evidence that ,she wanted it‘.

And what else can one expect in a world, where having had sex with the rapist ever before or not saying no, because of being passed out, counts against the victim.

The lesser charge needs a name.

I suggested 'inattention to consent'.

Crimes aren't necessarily named self evidently. The name makes sense when we get used to it.
Murder. Manslaughter. Grievous/aggravated bodily harm.

Reckless inattention to consent.
Aggravated inattention to consent.

Maybe juries will be less reluctant if it's not called 'rape'.

Maybe judges could direct jurors to find that reasonable doubt doesn't mean 'well yes they had sex and she didn't want sex but how was he supposed to know that/avoid his penis falling into her fanny/realise that the teenager in a thong is not gagging for it'.

We could expect men significantly older/richer/stronger than women to think and check twice before having sex with them.

I honestly think the sexual revolution has done women no favours. It's become incredibly hard to prove you weren't consenting, because women are now considered always up for it. No need for evidence of a long standing relationship, seeking out a private space, anywhere and anytime.

(trigger warning)

I did not report the male ''friend'' who assaulted me because I knew there was no chance he would be convicted.

I had known him for several years and I initially consented to sex but then it became not consensual (I asked him to stop as I was not enjoying what he was doing and he did not).

He raped me but proving this is basically his word against mine. Predators like him know that full well. I was in shock as well for the first few days after it happened and did not even want to admit to myself what he had done. So the physical evidence was no longer there for the police when I sought advice from a rape crisis centre.

I also found out afterwards this man had abused his previous girlfriend (who also did not report him because she had entered in the relationship willingly and he was charming and caring for the first few months, then he slowly started gaslighting her and made her doubt her sanity, she just ran off in the end and wanting nothing more to do with him) and he will probably do the same to other women who he will befriend and then abuse.

Because the burden of proof is always on us women and most juries/judges will not convict (if it even goes to trial...) in the type of situation where you know your abuser and it is basically their word against yours. Also you ask yourself if the trauma of having the police question you and go through your phone, life and so on is worth it when you know the man is likely to get away with it.

Until men in general stop seeing women as sex objects, second class beings and while society keeps routinely allowing and excusing violence against women this will continue to happen.

Hang on, why are you blaming the CPS? In every one of those cases the rapist was tried! It is the jury that found them not guilty.

We live in a misogynistic society - juries are made up of members of that society.

It's sickening that these excuses were believed, I can't imagine how thick the jurors must have been. That's the risk you take with juror trials, though. You might get 12 reasonable people, but you might get 12 neanderthals.

There have been other crimes that took a long time for society to take seriously.

Racism
Wife beating
Rape within marriage- simply not possible regardless of consent, at one time.
Beating a child- 'discipline'.

We can turn things around. But it takes effort.

deepwatersolo
Case law isn't just used to prevent convictions - its a series of tested cases at court to establish the 'boundaries' of that act. It can work both ways.

And it doesn't have to be a form that is signed to prove consent. We see a lot of times now that incidents of your typical one-night-stands are sound recorded by the male to prove it was consensual. So, he will have his phone on record on the bed side cabinet or in his pocket, not for any perverse reasons, but to show that it was consensual throughout.

picklemewalnuts
Reckless inattention to consent.
Aggravated inattention to consent.

So what would be the 'points to prove' for these to convict?

Would it be the case of the man to prove he had consent - and if so, what would be acceptable as proof?

What would be the aggravating factors of the offence?

For example - Aggravated burglary, means that the burglar has brought a weapon. Aggravated TWOC, means that damage has been caused (crashed etc)

Artygirlghost
Horrible that you have had to go through this and I hope you were given access to support services.

A lot of victims/survivors don't want to go through the court process but are happy to contact police for the initial investigation. Sometimes they are happy that the suspect was arrested and interviewed only. Police can also prosecute without the victim on board now via Evidence Led Prosecutions. A lot of victims/survivors don't really care what happens to the suspect but want to put themselves first.

I don't think its a case that the burden of proof falls onto the shoulders of women. Its more a case of the offence being proven beyond reasonable doubt to have a safe conviction - this is where the law perhaps needs to change, but to what, i don't know.

KvotheTheBloodless
I agree - remove the jury from the equation for these types of cases?

Get a grip felix. Off the list above:
Having sex with someone so drunk their ability to consent is debatable
Being so drunk yourself you don't know who you are having sex with
Having sex in a pitch black room with someone who came home with someone else

Basically it would be good of the onus was on men to show they'd done some basic due diligence regarding consent - like asking her.

If a man gets so drunk he accidentally fucks a stranger thinking its his wife, there should be some kind of consequence to that.

Stop trying to make out its impossible to strengthen the law around consent. It makes you look creepy.

I sure wonder whether there has ever been a ruling that a man falling into another man‘s anus penis first was an accident.

And if not, why not?

AdamRyan
I agree with you - those offences should have been convicted as there was no consent - but for some reason a jury found them not guilty. Police & CPS thought there is sufficient to convict, but the jury said no. That's why I am asking, do we take the jury out of the equation?

But on the grand scheme,e of things, these decision are quite rare in comparison to all rape cases being sent to court. The vast majority will come down to the point of consent with both people being sober and fully aware of their surroundings - so not intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness or in a darkened room, or someones twin brother etc etc

Its this 'point of consent' that you need to explore to achieve a better outcome at court for victims/survivors.

The earlier point raised of:
Reckless inattention to consent.
Aggravated inattention to consent.
This may be possible, but it will need to explained further as to who would need to prove the consent and how it was not reckless, in order to convict. Where does the burden of proof lie in other words to show Reckless inattention.

deepwatersolo
Perhaps they has been - you'll need to read the case laws to find out

Sure Jan.

"The earlier point raised of:
Reckless inattention to consent.
Aggravated inattention to consent.
This may be possible, but it will need to explained further as to who would need to prove the consent and how it was not reckless, in order to convict. Where does the burden of proof lie in other words to show Reckless inattention."

I'm sure we covered some of this.
Neither one being drunk would be a good indicator that informed consent was sought.
A pre existing relationship would do similar.
The girl not being left in an alley.
Not having had sex five minutes previously with someone else... all those would indicate to me that informed consent may not been present.

Shit why am explaining?

Yeah I decided I couldn't be arsed.
I don't understand why consent seems such a difficult topic to so many men people. But then again maybe that's why so many women get raped and so many rapists get off

It doesn't seem so hard to have a reckless driving crime for example.

picklemewalnuts
No, you haven't covered it at all

Neither one being drunk would be a good indicator that informed consent was sought. - so, so long as both people are not drunk we can assume consent was gained by the man? Really? And who determines if a person is drunk? Had 1 drink, 2 drinks, 3 drinks - at what point are they drunk in law to determine consent.

A pre existing relationship would do similar. - Again, husband & wife we would automatically assume that consent was gained if they are in a relationship? What if one was drunk and one wasn't? What if it was a controlling relationship? What if it was honour based violence?

The girl not being left in an alley. - So the defence could be that they had consensual sex in the alleyway and afterwards got into a furious argument, so the male assaulted her knocking her to the floor and walked away and left her in the alley. The male pleads guilty to assault but not guilty to rape. Are you happy to convict with rape based on this if its word against word for the rape?

You need to explain further, because at the moment your legal arguments make no sense if your going to prove a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt for an offence of rape if the critical point is about consent.

AdamRyan
Consent is not a difficult concept for most people. It is, however, a difficult concept to prove in a court of law if its word against word.

Yes, the examples you gave where the victim was clearly drunk, or the male slipped and his penis 'accidentally' fell into her vagina - these are rapes and should have been convicted as so by the jury.

But what if a male and female have sex - not in drink, not in a darkened room etc.

The female states "I did not consent to having sex"
But the male states "She fully consented to having sex"

Where do you go from there - convict or not?

How are you going to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent was not given?

You can't compare reckless driving to reckless consent.
Reckless driving would be driving your car into a sign post - how is this comparable to reckless inattention to consent for rape?

OK I'm bored so I will bite.
None of your hypothetical strawman cases are relevant to being reckless regarding consent. They are also made up.

The girl not being left in an alley. - So the defence could be that they had consensual sex in the alleyway and afterwards got into a furious argument, so the male assaulted her knocking her to the floor and walked away and left her in the alley. The male pleads guilty to assault but not guilty to rape. Are you happy to convict with rape based on this if its word against word for the rape?
This is the most ridiculous strawman I think I've ever read. This is "he said, she said" to some extent, but yes if I was on a jury I'd be happy to convict him because I would see no reason for the female to be lying and every reason for the male to be lying. Plus him assaulting her shows he's happy to be violent.

so, so long as both people are not drunk we can assume consent was gained by the man? Really? And who determines if a person is drunk? Had 1 drink, 2 drinks, 3 drinks - at what point are they drunk in law to determine consent. The point is that if a woman is really drunk, she can't consent and so a man who has sex with her in that state is being reckless. Similarly if he's really drunk he may not be able to assess if she's consenting accurately as his mental capacity is impaired. I think drink driving levels could be used to decide if someone was drunk enough to be reckless regarding consent.
Usually it won't be an issue as women don't routinely just decide to make up a rape allegation. But having it as an option might make men be a bit more diligent about whether women are consenting, and would give victims more opportunity for justice.

Now, rather than make up ridiculous strawman to "prove" the status quo is fine, what do you suggest we do to enable more rapists to be dealt with?

AdamRyan
This is the most ridiculous strawman I think I've ever read. This is "he said, she said" to some extent, but yes if I was on a jury I'd be happy to convict him because I would see no reason for the female to be lying and every reason for the male to be lying. Plus him assaulting her shows he's happy to be violent.
Yes, he might be 'happy to be violent' but he has admitted to the assault. You can't just assume that he must be therefore guilty of the rape. You have to prove the rape beyond reasonable doubt. ie more than word on word. And if you're going down the line of 'Reckless inattention to consent' where's the proof of that and who does the burden of that proof lie on? If he says 'she consented' but she says 'no he didn't' - we have to be able to prove either account beyond reasonable doubt.
This case is not made up either.

The point is that if a woman is really drunk, she can't consent and so a man who has sex with her in that state is being reckless. Similarly if he's really drunk he may not be able to assess if she's consenting accurately as his mental capacity is impaired. I think drink driving levels could be used to decide if someone was drunk enough to be reckless regarding consent.
And who is going to say that she is drunk to the point that she cannot consent. If the suspect states that - yes we had both been drinking but, she was lucid, held and conversation and we spoke about sex and she consented to it. Do we just disbelieve him? How many drinks do they have to have had to be drunk? Drink drive levels are not relevant here - what if the rape is reported the following day - the drink drive level will be zero by then. Also, people (alcoholics) can be 2-3 times over the drink drive limit but be perfectly lucid and you would not describe them as drunk.

And its not a case of who has made up what allegation. False allegations do get reported though (believe me as I work in the field) - but the law stands that you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no consent was gained in order to prove a rape.

My suggestion would be to remove the jury from the equation and encourage people to have on them devices which records what they are doing.

"the suspect states that - yes we had both been drinking but, she was lucid, held and conversation and we spoke about sex and she consented to it. Do we just disbelieve him? "

Yes we do. If there is evidence of drinking then there is doubt as to consent.

We need to stop this culture of assuming consent unless there's extraordinary evidence otherwise.

Consent needs to be reasonably demonstrated. Both parties were sober. Both parties were in a reasonably likely place.
If someone is drunk in an alley it's not reasonable to assume they consented.

Women are innocent of fabricating rapes unless it's beyond reasonable doubt they made it up.

It won't prevent all rape. Men will still rape sober women they know in the privacy of their homes.

It will stop the fuckers who shag any slightly out of it looking girl they can persuade into a quiet corner.

I understand this is messing with your head. It's apparently a bit radical. But something radical needs to be done. Women are being brutalised at an astonishing rate. It's an epidemic of violence.

If 1 in 7 people were being run over, we'd rewrite the Highway Code.