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.

Doesn't stand up in law though

R v Bree I think states that the presence of alcohol doesn't mean the person could not consent or make reasonable decisions

So, it would be a safe conviction for rape if the victim had one drink and the suspect had no alcohol when it is word against word?

We need to stop this culture of assuming consent - Consent needs to be reasonably demonstrated
So what do we need to do, to prove that consent was gained?
Who does the oness rest on - the male presumably - and what would be acceptable evidence to show consent was gained?
Show both parties were not in drink at the time - who decides this, if the report is made the next day. What if they had drank in the morning, but the rape occurred on the night - still effected by alcohol?

If someone is paralytic in an alley way - yes i agree they couldn't not have consented. What if though they only had 1-2 drinks and were perfectly lucid? Does the fact it was an alleyway make a difference? Its the act of sex and the point of consent that is the evidential test - not the location of where it happened to prove the offence of rape.

In a legal standpoint the rape conviction has to be a safe one and has to cover the points to prove of the offence. Its not a case that the courts are disbelieving what victims/survivors say - its a case of the court being satisfied that the rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict.

Its not messing with my head - the law is quite clear.
If changes need to be made, then you have to put some 'meat on the bones' as to what Reckless inattention to consent & Aggravated inattention to consent actually mean and what their 'points to prove' would be.

AdamRyan
Again - Jury decisions

So the Police & CPS were happy that there was sufficient to convict, yet the jury said no

So - I ask again - do we remove the jury from the trails?

According to the gendarmerie nationale it was consensual sex. The force used to spread my legs was sufficient to sprain my thigh muscle and I was limping.

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.

And read what I said. I said reckless inattention to consent wouldn't apply. That's a rape.
Why would the fact he admitted the assault have anything to do with rape? He might be trying to avoid a longer prison sentence, going on the sex offenders register or having the stigma of being a convicted rapist. I don't think the word of a man who assaults women and has every reason to lie should be assumed equally reliable to a woman where there's evidence of penetration, she was beaten and said she didn't consent.
Got a link to the case as I'd be interested to read a neutral version of it.

In terms of alcohol limits, its relevant in the same way as drunk driving. It is possible to test whether someone's drunk enough to have impaired judgement. Your argument is like a drunk driver who says they feel fine after 3 pints. What is the possible argument for not taking into account blood alcoh9l as to whether someone was incapable of consent?

Not in legal standing though.

I agree with you - I wouldn't trust anyone who has assaulted a female, ever.

I also wouldn't trust a person who has a criminal record as long as your arm.
I wouldn't trust anyone who has convictions for thefts

But the law states that each case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt

So just because we have arrested a 80+ conviction thief for another theft - we still have to prove the offence that he is currently subject to.

So in this case, you're still going to have to prove the consent part and prove beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a safe conviction for rape. Yes, he might be trying to avoid a longer prison sentence, going on the sex offenders register or having the stigma of being a convicted rapist - but that is not enough to prove the offence of rape.
.

There is no link to the case as it was not publicised - this is one of many i have dealt with over the last 22 years of service.

Drink drive limits are taken as there is a specified limit as to what you can not drive over - it has nothing to do with being drunk per se.

And how are you going to take the alcohol levels of the victim & suspect if the report is made days after the incident. Even hours after will have a sufficient amount of time for your blood alcohol level to diminish.

"Show both parties were not in drink at the time - who decides this, if the report is made the next day. "

The evidence is that they were in a bar, buying drinks/at a party where they were seen drinking. You know, gather evidence they were drinking?

It's like you are trying to disprove all cases by finding a fault with one possible scenario.

I'm talking about a culture shift where we accept that women generally prefer not to have sexual in alleys. Generally prefer not to be injured during sex. Are not able to consent when drunk.

People having sex consensually need to start saying 'not in this alley, people will think I'm a rapist.'

We're talking about a new crime, so there isn't case law to contradict anything yet. It's new. It will take time to build up case law that describes what reckless inattention to consent looks like.

Here are a case I think could be helped-

The 35 yr old who took a drunk 15 yr old up to an apartment he didn't own and had sex with her against a wall, while she said no. Someone gave him keys to the show apartment. Lots of people saw the girl drinking.

It should be beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give informed consent to have sex up against a wall, with no contraception, after she'd been drinking. A 35 yr old man should be able to know he can't prove consent beyond reasonable doubt in that situation, and keep his trousers zipped.

Can you consider how such a thing might work, instead of how it wouldn't?

Not to mention legally a 15 year old can't consent anyway. That's an awful case

There is no link to the case as it was not publicised - this is one of many i have dealt with over the last 22 years of service.
Hmm. So I guess you were a police officer? Did you refer the case to the CPS or decide yourself not to charge?
I'm really hoping you aren't police as your attitude suggests you aren't able to objectively investigate crimes

Right, but I'd guess he'd say he thought she was older. She was drinking. She was responding to his chat, as far as a 15yr old can.

Under the current system, there's no way that would get anywhere.

And would it be so much better if she was 16?

Under my system, a man would have to show beyond reasonable doubt why he thought the girl was consenting. He'd need onlookers to say she was snogging him, asked someone for a condom, made a joke about going upstairs with him, something that backed up the idea that she went upstairs intending to have sex with him, within an hour of meeting him. He'd need her to have sad to the barman, 'just a cola please, I don't want to miss out on anything!'

We can't seem to convict on rape. Basically consent seems to assumed in the absence of a witness to a woman screaming "no, get off me'. That's what I'm trying to challenge.

If someone takes my purse out of my bag and spends my money, they don't tend to get away with saying 'pickle said it's fine'. Why not?

The headline in that Irish newspaper is disgustingly racist

Right, but I'd guess he'd say he thought she was older. She was drinking. She was responding to his chat, as far as a 15yr old can.
I agree with you but I think its disgusting. What's the point of having an age of consent if it basically provides no legal protection?

Anyway, great example of recklessness on behalf of the man. Assuming he didn't intend to rape a 15 year old.

picklemewalnuts
It should be beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give informed consent to have sex up against a wall, with no contraception, after she'd been drinking. A 35 yr old man should be able to know he can't prove consent beyond reasonable doubt in that situation, and keep his trousers zipped.
So sex should only happen between a married couple of similar age in their bedroom. Anything else, then you're edging into the 'difficult to show consent' area?

Under my system, a man would have to show beyond reasonable doubt why he thought the girl was consenting - He'd need onlookers to say she was snogging him
And how is he supposed to do that exactly - A friend of him saw her snogging him, so therefore she must have consented - really? Both were drinking soft drinks so she must have consented?

Theft is a different offence - there is no consent involved with this offence.
"Dishonestly appropriate property, belonging to another, with the intention to deprive the other of it."

AdamRyan
The case had other evidential difficulties and the victim/survivor withdrew her statement.

And how are you assuming that i cannot objectively investigate crimes

Theft is a different offence - there is no consent involved with this offence.
"Dishonestly appropriate property, belonging to another, with the intention to deprive the other of it."

It was a gift.
SHe gave it to me.
She left it by the bins.
SHe rang me to remove it as scrap metal.
I thought it was my car.
She gave me her card before.
I didn't realise it wasn't my card.
She gave her car to my friend so I had a go too.
The purse was on the floor ,open ,with all that cash spilling out.

And so on.

Funny how those aren't as acceptable as a defence in court?

Or work as well.

I think there are some men that view rape in much the same way they do speeding. They know it’s against the law, but the chances are overwhelmingly in their favour they will get away with it.
My rapist knew without a shadow of a doubt that he would never ever be punished for it. I suspect he’s never given it another moment’s thought.

I don't think they even feel it's a proper crime. Very often they feel it did no harm, I fear.

Because of your attitude. You've literally just suggested that pickle said sex should between similar age people, when she was talking about a 35 year old having sex with a 15 year old who legally cannot consent. That's a ridiculous paraphrase of what she said. I'd hope a police officer would rightly be outraged about that case, rather than explaining away the adult man's behaviour.

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of you as OIC if I was a rape victim. Your whole hearted belief in "its he said, she said, so the man is not guilty" will leak out in how you treat victims.

ldontWanna
They can use any defence at court to suggest a theft has not occurred - again its up to the court to decide if the points to prove have been met. And thieves do fail to get convicted on these defences. But, these don't hinge so heavily on the point of consent.

Burglary happens and we find a possible suspect around the corner with the loot in his hand. His defence - I've just seen some lad drop them and run off - so I collected them up and was going to hand them in. Defence accepted by the court and no conviction.

Stolen car stopped and driver arrested for theft - His defence - some guy has just sold me this car in a pub, said he wanted a quick sale has he was travelling abroad, don't know who it was. Defence accepted and only prosecuted for minor traffic offences (no insurance etc)

So it does happen regularly - perhaps why conviction levels are so low.

AdamRyan
No - i was drawing an inference made from picklemewalnuts' post. In that they were implying the age difference should be evident that consent has not occurred.

Under my system, a man would have to show beyond reasonable doubt why he thought the girl was consenting. He'd need onlookers to say she was snogging him, asked someone for a condom, made a joke about going upstairs with him, something that backed up the idea that she went upstairs intending to have sex with him, within an hour of meeting him. He'd need her to have sad to the barman, 'just a cola please, I don't want to miss out on anything!'

So if we have all the above and the female went upstairs willingly with the male and went into the bedroom together - but at the last moment she decides she didn't want to have sex, but the man had sex with her anyway against her consent - what happens then?

Is he not convicted because they were seen snogging each other, she asked people for condoms etc? Is she not able to withdraw her consent at any point?
Are we saying that we should believe him more because of the actions prior to the alleged rape?

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of you as OIC if I was a rape victim. Your whole hearted belief in "its he said, she said, so the man is not guilty" will leak out in how you treat victims.
Well, only positive feedback so far from the many victims/survivors I have dealt with.
And have never had the whole hearted belief in "its he said, she said, so the man is not guilty". I am there to gain as much early evidence to prove that consent has not happened. Identifying a suspect and getting them arrested early in order to take forensic samples, seizing clothing, finding a scene or multiple scenes. Early disclosures from the victim and their early forensic evidence. All the safeguarding for them also and counselling support.

What i am saying, is that as the investigation goes on (which I cannot be a part of) - you are always going to get the issues around consent. Now the police & CPS can authorise a charge, but the cases often fail at court. I'm suggesting do we remove the jury from the equation in the final decision making aspect?

Like I've repeatedly said, it won't stop every crime. It will help a hell of a lot.

If that girl is snogging him, asking for a condom etc, then at that point she's considering having sex with him. He's not been reckless about consent, at least there'd be reasonable doubt.

If she thinks she's going upstairs to look at a show apartment, she hasn't been snogging him, hasn't asked around where she can buy condoms, then there's no reasonable doubt he was at the very least reckless about consent. In fact it was rape, but you know, he said she said.

What we're trying to do is reimagine how rape is prosecuted to get rid of the 'he said, she said, we'll never get a conviction' element that makes rape effectively repercussion free for men.

I'm not prepared to keep going through it with you, because you are demonstrating a rigidity of thinking which prevents progress being made. I don't doubt your intentions. I just don't think you can contribute helpfully because you are blinded by the difficulty inherent in the current system.

This is thought experiment to see whether we can find another way to view the situation.

I agree you - if the build up to it was that she was going to view an apartment and arranged to meet a potential buyer at the address and ended up being raped - then that would be taken into consideration to prove it was not consensual and was pre-meditated. Police & CPS would charge with this.

But, its probably at the court where it fails after the decision is being made by the jury.

My suggestion would be to remove the jury.

But, they other way around - so she was snogging him and asking people for condoms but changes her mind last minute will always cause problems.

This is where a lot of 'one-night-stand-rapes' lay.

His friends will say that they were all over each other in the night club, they arranged to go to a hotel room together, she told her friends that she was not going home tonight and intended to spend the night with this new lad she met. Both carry condoms in their property. But in the hotel room, she decides she doesn't want to have sex last minute or decides not to have the kind of sex he wants - what happens then? Does her 'non-consent' diminish because of the build up?

The pre-meditated rape is still quite rare - the majority of rapes would be the 'one-night-stand' types or rapes in a domestic setting. Most rapes are committed by people known to the victim/survivor.

And if attitudes by males need to change - I agree.

And we do find loads of males now recording the event on their phones - not for any perverse reasons - but to capture that consent was gained. So, their mobile is on record in their pocket or on the bedside table often unknown to the victim/survivor.

Should people (both male & female) be more open to recording devices being attached to them - just in case?

New one today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68856510

The victim is suing the therapist. Case was dropped by police as the therapist claimed the victim wanted "to work with penetration" to get over her trauma 🤢🤮

I hope she wins, brave woman

Janneh won her civil case 🎉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw99e1vpe58o

What an amazing woman. I wish I could thank her

Good for her. Bloody men.

We need to restructure our laws so rape victim get justice. These stories are sickening.