Active discussions

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

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

"Falling" and "accidentally penetrating" somebody is a rape defence now.

199 replies

BertieBotts · 10/12/2015 18:40

WTAF?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-fell-and-penetrated-her-by-accident-millionaire-rape-suspect-claims-a6767486.html

Hopefully - surely - this will never go down in court, right? How ignorant of basic biology would you need to be, exactly? I've heard of some ridiculous defences to rape before but this really takes the biscuit.

OP posts:
devire · 17/12/2015 00:11

The thought goes through my mind...what would have been the scenario if the person "accidentally penetrated" had been a man. It seems that the problem exists because the scenario of being penetrated against your will is outside the experience of heterosexual men. Therefore the male perception of the act and it's effects and consequences is likely to be grossly distorted. Perhaps, we need more women magistrates and judges and for the victim to have the option of who will hear their case. This bias also currently affects the selection of jurors.

noblegiraffe · 17/12/2015 00:27

Lass yes, that scenario (or judge and jurors at least) makes more sense to me than the jury believing that you can fall over and accidentally have sex with someone.

Although from people's experiences of juries, perhaps they are all complete idiots.

How can people trust the justice system if the reasoning behind this bizarre decision isn't explained in any way?

Dipankrispaneven · 17/12/2015 00:33

It's a central principle of the justice system that juries cannot talk about the reasoning behind their verdict. It has to be, if you think about it, because if they had to explain their verdict it would be near-impossible to produce reasoning that all 12 agreed on, some jurors would be much better able to give explanations than others, you'd get jurors coming up with stuff like "I thought he looked shifty", you'd get all sorts of people arguing and second-guessing, and it would be chaotic.

Canyouforgiveher · 17/12/2015 00:34

What I can't understand about this case is there was evidence of his semen on her/in her which is consistent with her story. How can anyone who has actually had sex believe his version? I don't have much sexual experience compared to many but what I do have means I understand the mechanics of sex - accidental penetration only happens when you are engaged in full on sexual activity. It doesn't happen accidentally.

If his defence was, it was consensual, I could accept a jury believing him over her - maybe he was more credible. But an accidental penetration as a defence? Where did this jury come from?

noblegiraffe · 17/12/2015 00:36

I didn't say the jury had to give their reasoning. But given that in the press we were treated to every fine detail of the awful murder of Becky Watts, and that people were defending this as justice having to be done in public, why is bugger all being reported about this trial that explains the apparently ludicrous verdict?

Dipankrispaneven · 17/12/2015 00:41

Canyouforgive, as I understand it from the other thread, he said she pulled him down on top of her and pushed his hand down between her legs, and semen got on her because he had semen on his hand.

noblegiraffe · 17/12/2015 00:48

But he also said that his erect penis was poking out of his shorts and may have accidentally penetrated her when he fell.

boobproblem · 17/12/2015 00:58

There must be something in the case that can't be reported on. It can't possibly be the whole story

Also don't the jury have to find him guilty beyond all doubt? What was it that made them doubt?

Very odd case

boobproblem · 17/12/2015 00:58

I'm not say

boobproblem · 17/12/2015 00:58

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty

I just mean - what kind of crazy legal nuance is at work here?!

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/12/2015 01:03

He changed his story at least once, under police questioning, to fit with the police evidence as far as I understand it.

It's a twatty lie, everyone seems to realise this, but somehow he got off- it's a media joke FFS. I would like to know what the hell the jury heard in secret, that the rest of us can't hear. I would like to know why he was granted this 20 mins secret evidence.

I would basically like to know why yet another bloke seems to have got away with rape.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 17/12/2015 01:22

I'm not a court lawyer although I am married to a litigator. His experience of juries are they take it very seriously. Why would they be idiots?

I don't understand the comment about bias affecting the selection of juries. Juries are picked at random from the general public although certain people (including me) are permanently ineligible. The Crown and the prosecution are each allowed a limited number of peremptory challenges from the pool of jurors called on the day.

The idea that a crime victim gets to choose who hears their case is not realistic. How would that even work and would this apply to other accused. ? It also misses the point it is not "their case"- it is the Crown's case.

Would a jury with more female members be more likely to convict? I'm sure I've seen research which contradicted that.

I would very much like to know what the reason was for taking evidence in private. I don't however think that will have swayed the jury to convict.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 17/12/2015 01:26

Sorry "to acquit"

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/12/2015 01:53

I thought that research* shows that juries with more men are more likely to convict for rape. Possibly the victim-blaming is still high among women (self protection) whereas the majority of men think "i wouldn't do that" - and think of their daughters/wives/sisters etc. I don't know.

Certainly on that recent BBC show, the women were quite harsh and judgemental (I thought).

*Don't know for sure, we were made aware of it during my friend's rape trial, where I was also a prosecution witness. Our hearts sank a little when we heard there were 7 women on the jury. Still, they convicted the bastard.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 17/12/2015 02:06

I don't think we have heard the last of this case.

The only glimmer at all was his comment "I'm fragile"- which is an odd thing to say (even odder for a man to say of himself? )

Husband is as puzzled as all of us (and as far as I can tell the entire internet) why the evidence was heard in private but came up with the (weak) suggestion that possibly the accused has some sort of health condition which would make a public cross examination problematic.

Shutthatdoor · 17/12/2015 02:10

I'm not a court lawyer although I am married to a litigator. His experience of juries are they take it very seriously. Why would they be idiots?

^ this.

Sweeping statements like 'complete idiots' helps no one. Nor is it true!

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/12/2015 02:22

Why, then, in the name of sanity, did they acquit this man?

To quote OP - WTAF??

EvaBING · 17/12/2015 02:40

Did the other girl give evidence?

DadWasHere · 17/12/2015 02:45

This really... stuns me. The jury sees 20 minutes of evidence in private and then acquits him after half an hour of deliberations. Just half an hour? Huh? Seems utterly bizarre and almost incomprehensible it would happen so fast. Could he have some form of medical condition, say a micropenis or something else, that would cause a jury to decide 'rape' was, by definition, functionally not possible for him?

EvaBING · 17/12/2015 02:52

Would graphic evidence in the form of photos or such be reason enough to have it in private?

Room101isWhereIUsedToLive · 17/12/2015 04:09

No idea Eva, just know that I am sickened by the verdict.

Doublebubblebubble · 17/12/2015 05:51

Similar to Oscar Pistorius

Thankfully he has had his previous conviction overturned and changed... Is there a possibility for that in this case at all?? I'm curious.

*However, I can't imagine a (gay) man tripping and falling and his erect penis landing in a (straight) man's arse, getting away with it.

^exactly this!

IShouldBeSoLurky · 17/12/2015 09:15

I suppose it's possible that the woman has made loads of similar accusations in the past. But then surely she could be charged with wasting police time or similar.

thedancingbear · 17/12/2015 09:25

I don't see how anyone can take a firm view that the verdict is right or wrong without having sat through the whole trial.

That said, if he's admitted penetrating her accidentally, why is that not still rape? In my experience it's quite difficult to penetrate someone without meaning to, so on the very best reading of the situation, surely he has at least been grossly reckless?

GloriaSmellens · 17/12/2015 09:33

I haven't read loads on this, but surely in order for him to accidentally penetrate her whilst falling over, she would have had to be asleep naked, with her legs akimbo and in the exact correct position for it to just slip in? Seems unlikely! I don't really get it - why didn't he just go with the usual 'she wanted it guv'?

However, I don't think anyone here can say the verdict is 'wrong'. When the Ched Evans verdict came out, lots of people were questioning it, and on here the tone was very much 'we shouldnt question the British justice system, a jury who listened to all of the evidence has decided this and that is final, of they say guilty then guilty he is'. In the interests of fairness, I think the same should apply herehere weird as this case seems.