Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: “There have been 60 other UK women killed in violence claimed to be consensual”

93 replies

BojanaMumsnet · 09/06/2020 14:53

I am so so glad that Mumsnet users gave their support to this campaign – Mumsnet is such a powerful campaigning force, and this campaign began right here. MNers can take action today to give us the best chance to change this.

I set up We Can’t Consent To This at the end of 2018, in response to the astonishingly short sentence given to the partner of Natalie Connolly. He was allowed by prosecutors to plead guilty to manslaughter, and given a three year eight month sentence by the judge, after Natalie died with terrible injuries at their home. Natalie’s partner claimed her brutal beating and appalling internal injuries were due to “rough sex” that she’d consented to; and this “consent” was accepted by the court. Natalie’s dad Alan since said, “Natalie is no longer here to tell us what he did to her or why he left her where he did. But there is absolutely no way she would have consented to what she was put through. One thing is for certain - Natalie didn't fantasise about being killed or leaving her daughter without a mum that night. Like so many other women, she didn’t consent to being brutally injured in the name of sex.”

And Natalie isn’t alone – we’ve found that there are 60 other UK women who’ve been killed in violence claimed to be consensual: this is the “rough sex defence”. You can see their stories on our website. And there are many more women injured in non-fatal assaults. Every woman who has been able to say so, says she did not consent to the violence. Only men have used a rough sex defence, often in appallingly serious violence. What’s more, its use is increasing. 13 women have been killed since Natalie Connolly, where a “rough sex” claim was used by the defendant.

Using a rough sex claim in defence works too often: in 45% of homicides, the men get a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, or no charges at all. Often the woman’s sexual history is presented in court, to show she ‘consented’ to violence.

All this is at a time of a shocking violent assault of women in sex: research reported that 38% of UK women under 40 experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging, or spitting during consensual sex. This could mean 3.6 million UK women have been violently assaulted. Hundreds have written to us sharing their experiences, relatively few of those women have contacted police, but the criminal justice system must be ready to support them if they do.

Now, there is already a lawalready law that says you can’t consent to serious violence. But our research shows that this case law is not up to the task. It’s routinely disregarded. And as reported last week, the CPS confirmed they won’t prosecute violence where the defendant might say it was consensual: that they won’t try to prosecute using this existing law.

So, Parliament must step in. MPs across parties are gathering behind this: Harriet Harman has worked with Mark Garnier - the MP for Natalie Connolly’s family - and MP Laura Farris, to propose a set of amendments to the Domestic Abuse bill, which would go some way to end the success of these claims.

Only the government can - and must – bring these claims to a real end. We need change at every stage of the criminal justice system, for women in relationships with perpetrators, and for those who had only just met. After our campaign, the government promised their own review of rough sex defences, to prevent perpetrators evading justice – and we do know they take this issue seriously. You might have seen Boris Johnson say the defence is “inexcusable” when Laura Farris asked him about this at PMQs last week. But we don’t know if his government is bold enough to come back with full proposals of their own. Real change is far from certain.

For now, we have firm proposals from Harriet, Mark and Laura: to make the law clear - that you cannot consent to serious injury or death, to stop women’s sexual histories being used against them in homicide trials and to introduce a specific serious offence of non-fatal strangulation. We want as many individual MPs to sign up to these as possible – so the government knows how wide the support is for far reaching change that only they can make.

And for MNers in Scotland or Northern Ireland, we will campaign for similar change for you. We’ve already spoken with Holyrood MSPs to kick this off in Scotland. For now though, all UK MNers can help us with change to the Domestic Abuse bill.

These “rough sex” claims have been working for fifty years, we need law change and more to fix this. Our chance to change the law can begin today, when MPs will discuss the “rough sex” amendments in parliament.

So this week we want all UK Mumnsetters: to sign and share our petition, and email your MP. We know from MPs that constituent emails make a huge difference and I know how formidable a force MNers can be.

OP posts:
sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 09:56

....so you're objecting to a differentiation between murder and manslaughter ? And because SB agrees that there should be a difference, he or she is a misogynist ?

sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 12:23

He’s right to draw attention to the fact that this does not change much

He’s right to draw attention to the fact that this does not change anything

Fixed it for you.

TatianaBis · 02/07/2020 13:44

I’m saying there are many more women killed by doors than walk into them by mistake. And I don’t agree that the very few doors that are walked into by mistake should be protected at the expense of the numerous women killed by them.

sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 14:14

He's saying that each case should be judged on its own facts.

thatsnotgoingtowork · 02/07/2020 14:34

I saw someone on the comments section under a news story about this posting the same thig - trying to argue that sometimes poor well meaning men really do accidentally kill women they've just met in genuinely consentual brutal acts of violence...

If someone kills someone through deliberate violence it isn't manslaughter because the killer claims that the convieniently dead , therefore unable to speak for herself) victim was gagging for it...

Perhaps what we need is something more radical - a change in the law to say that manslaughter is when you did not mean to hurt anyone and your actions (due to negligence or carelessness) led to killing someone. If you mean to injure them it should be murder. If you like beating women up then it's on you to decide whether to risk doing that and be convicted of murder even if you only meant to break them a little bit Hmm

sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 15:51

Perhaps what we need is something more radical - a change in the law to say that manslaughter is when you did not mean to hurt anyone and your actions (due to negligence or carelessness) led to killing someone. If you mean to injure them it should be murder.

I think that more or less that is where the law stands at the moment - and has done for decades. With the caveat, that its not necessarily a test of 'carelessness' per se for manslaughter. (although there is a separate driving offence of causing death through careless driving - which carries a lower sentence than causing death by dangerous driving)

thatsnotgoingtowork · 02/07/2020 16:01

sawdustformypony but doesn't that completely contradict the idea that if someone consents to sexual violence their murder isn't man slaughter? It shouldn't matter whether they consented if the violence was intentional - if he meant to hurt her but not kill her, it's still murder.

thatsnotgoingtowork · 02/07/2020 16:02

sorry contradicts the idea that their murder is manslaughter if they consented to being hurt. If he intended to hurt her then it's murder when he kills her. So there is no case by case "I only meant to hurt her a bit" defence. If it was rough sex gone wrong it's murder because the intention to hurt was there.

TatianaBis · 02/07/2020 18:35

He's saying that each case should be judged on its own facts.

As each case is. Except of course the facts are often not clear.

sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 18:49

Its the level of hurt that you intented - obviously the defendant's version of event will be tested in the trial - if he says he intented minor harm, but evidence was that he'd used a hammer - then the jury will form the obvious conclusion very quickly.

So much of criminal law has to do what was going on in the guilty person's mind when they committed the crime. BTW If you inflict serios harm on a person and intented that harm - and the person dies, that is still murder

TatianaBis · 02/07/2020 20:04

Intented?

sawdustformypony · 02/07/2020 20:54

Intended - thanks.

ChattyLion · 07/07/2020 00:58

Domestic Abuse Bill: MPs back ban on 'chilling rough sex defence' - BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53311652

Thank you to Fiona, Harriet Wistrich and all the women who have worked on this Flowers

LunaRabbit · 07/07/2020 08:27

If a man likes hurting others for pleasure, he doesn't deserve to be dating a woman. Or interacting with other human beings.

FionaMackenzie · 11/07/2020 12:54

It’s been an incredible few weeks for the We Can’t Consent to This campaign, and I’m so pleased to be able to update Mumsnetters on what’s been going on.

Last Thursday the Government published their proposal for clear law on consent to serious harm, and published a change to the law in the Domestic Abuse bill to make it crystal clear that you cannot consent to serious harm, to death.

While there are various ways in which we will push the Government to go further- making non-fatal strangulation a specific, serious offence, and provisions to stop women’s names and sexual histories being presented in court and in the media to support a claim of consent to violence- we are happy to call this a victory.

Then on Monday, MPs voted in favour of this ban of the rough sex defence. Led in parliament by MPs Harriet Harman, Mark Garnier and Laura Farris, this campaign has been a genuinely cross party effort - you can watch and follow the debate on our live tweet. MP Mark Garnier spoke about his constituent Natalie Connolly, whose killer used the “rough sex defence” and received a derisory sentence. It was Natalie’s case that prompted me to set up We Can’t Consent to This in late 2018, and so it was a moving moment for all of us when Mark quoted from a letter written by Natalie’s dad, Alan Andrews, in the chamber;

“There is no way that a man should be able to bat away brutal sexual violence as just an accident and pave the way to get away with it. To cope with her private life being explored in intricate detail, on top of the grief of losing her, has been unimaginably hard for the whole family. Natalie is no longer here to tell us what he did to her or why he left her where he did. One thing is for certain: Natalie didn't fantasise about being killed or leaving her daughter without a mum that night."

We found that the rough sex defence has been used in the killings of 13 women since Natalie Connolly was killed. This amendment will make such a difference in the lives of so many women, and I am so grateful to everyone who has been involved in the campaign so far; we could not have done this without such fabulous support from the public, and Mumsnet has been a huge part of this.

MP Laura Farris responded to those who say, “why do we even need law change” - please watch her speak, it’s so powerful. the most powerful message of new clause 20 is a tacit one about the dignity of the women who have been killed in this way. It is not the perpetrator in the dock who gets to define her, or the judge in his sentencing remarks, but we in Parliament who draw a line in the sand and say, in effect, what the victims and their families never could: that she could not consent to that.

This isn't law yet - it needs to get through the House of Lords. And we need to see clear statement from Government and the CPS on how they'll collect and evaluate data on the use of rough sex claims. This law must be made to work: the Government say they'll keep the criminal law on this under review - a single failure will be enough for change. And next - to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where we have the same issues, same failings.

Also this week, with Harriet Harman and the Centre for Women's Justice, We Can't Consent To This has called on the CPS and police to review cases where rough sex claims had been used to drop rape and other assault charges. Read the women’s stories in this BBC piece.

There is still much to do, but we are optimistic that we can carry forward the energy and successes of this campaign on to many more future victories.

This is only the beginning, thank you all for joining us on this huge step forward for women. Flowers Flowers

ChattyLion · 12/07/2020 12:46

Thank you for the update Fiona Flowers

FionaMackenzie · 21/12/2020 12:58

Hello all and merry Christmas from us at WCCTT. There’s obviously a LOT on right now, especially in parliament, so we are still waiting for the ‘rough sex’ law and Domestic Abuse bill to come back to the House of Lords. That’s currently expected in early 2021, and we’ll be pushing then for recognition of the seriousness of strangulation, and commitment from the Government on making the law on ‘rough sex’ defences work.

We have heaps more to share on 2021 campaign plans shortly.

GREAT news from Northern Ireland though: The NI Department of Justice (DoJ) are consulting on a law change to prohibit the use of consent as a defence to sexual gratification, mirroring that added to the Domestic Abuse bill in Westminster.

That Westminster Domestic Abuse Bill will not apply in NI or in Scotland, so this Northern Ireland amendment would be a fantastic step for NI women if it is taken forward by the DoJ.
Please respond to the consultation if you can. There is a short timescale of 11th January for responses.

If you’d like to respond to this consultation, we’ve shared our research on ‘rough sex’ and violence in Northern Ireland, and some of our thoughts on the consultation questions - including why this change is needed.

Fiona

JeanMilburn · 06/01/2021 10:28

Informative post

New posts on this thread. Refresh page