Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

[Felascloak]

metro.co.uk/2016/05/12/woman-realised-she-was-having-sex-with-wrong-man-so-accused-him-of-rape-5876504/

I feel really bad for this woman (although I think if I was on the jury I probably would have thought there was a chance he believed he had consent). The headline implies she was unreasonably upset when she found the person having sex with her wasn't who she thought and so "falsely accused" him. Poor woman probably feels totally violated.
Also, what kind of man shags a woman who's gone home with a different guy, when that guy has just left the room for a minute. Ugh. He says he didn't even want to

The second story is horrific, the rapist seems to have thought of the victim as a possession, something to be used to pay back a third party.
'His girlfriend of 3 years is standing by him' is incomprehensible to me.

From the mouth of the accused - "‘I was just thinking, “I didn’t really want to have sex with her”, but I’m a human being and if you get touched like that you have a motivation to move on. I figured she was probably very drunk. "

So, you gave a lift to your house to a drunk mate and a drunk woman, whilst you were sober. You let them go into your bedroom then saw your mate come out naked. You decided to try and get the unknown, drunk woman out of your bed by nudging her and lying next to her - a woman your naked friend had just left.

You figured she was very drunk, though you were not, so surely you knew she must have been at least somewhat lacking in capacity - yet none of this stopped you putting your dick in her?

Nice.

So is the first case saying the law concerning rape is loaded in the perpetrators favour? That is if the rapist believes the victim has consented, even if the woman hasn't, it is not actually rape?

If the accused can establish he had a reasonable belief the woman consented that is a defence.

This decision puzzles me. I am not sure the same verdict would have been reached under the equivalent Scottish statute.

See section 13.

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/contents

A few years back, there was a case where a man was cleared of rape after, according to him, going into a hotel room and penetrating the woman there in belief she was his girlfriend (then in a different room).

Whichever way the "mistaken identity" goes, it seems that women lose. What a surprise.

And it's notable that for the men involved, their first thought was one of mockery/criticism for the woman, not utter remorse for the "mix-up".

This guy came out and told his friend, "Man you will not believe what she has done" and his friend laughed. The hotel bloke, IIRC, told a friend that he couldn't believe he'd shagged someone old enough to be his mother.

None of the men involved had any inkling or care that these reckless actions were awful for the woman concerned, whether or not they legally constituted rape (IMO, both did). Where does this utter disregard for women's sexual autonomy come from?!

"None of the men involved had any inkling or care that these reckless actions were awful for the woman concerned..."

I suspect their minds were more focused on the small matter of not being sent to jail.

Also AHellOfABird...

In the first case, there was no disregard for the woman's sexual autonomy. The reported evidence (which the jury accepted) says that SHE came onto him, which would explain why he thought she was consenting.

Big

These were things the men said to friends shortly after the events in question; I doubt either thought the police would be contacted at that point.

And perhaps the man in the first case thought she was coming onto him (though see my description above of him as stone cold sober, going into a room with a strange woman in it who he knew to be very drunk and lying down next to her).

He didn't come out and say to his friend, "shit, I feel bad, she thought you were me, she must feel really awful because she had sex won't someone other than who she thought" - it was a bit of a joke between them.

HTH.

"Sex won't = sex with" in the above post.

Ok Hell... so your issue (with the first case) is that he didn't say the right words in the immediate aftermath?

It's just that despite not having see/heard all the evidence, you are still of the expressed opinion that he is guilty of rape (when the jury, who were privy to all the evidence thought otherwise in less than 30 mins)

Mine was a wider point - as per my post, he clearly knew immediately afterwards that he had put his penis into a woman who consented on the basis of him being someone else.

Regardless of the legal situation, you don't think he should be horrified at what he had done?

(Separately, On the balance of probabilities, I think he raped her because he was aware she was very drunk and should have had a mind to her capacity, as he was stone cold sober. I can understand why it was hard to show this beyond reasonable doubt.)

Promiscuity isn't rape. It doesn't matter how distasteful the accused's actions were -what matters is what he percieved about the woman's state of mind, I.e. who he thought she thought he was. It's clear that the sex was a misunderstanding. It's clear that the accused isn't the most appealing chap to try to have sex under those circumstances. But it's not clear at all who he thought she thought he was.

The misunderstanding doesn't make it rape. Even the fact that the woman has had sex with someone and wouldn't have chosen to doesn't make it rape if there was a genuine misunderstanding.

I think it was rape because as soon as she found out who she was having sex with, she said it was rape.

Ie. she hadn't consented, and wouldn't have consented to have sex with him, and no consent means rape.

Big, if you got drunk, laydown in bed with your partner, and just as you were sleepy and relaxed, she popped to the toilet for a condom, but instead, someone came back and shoved a lubed cucumber up your arse, that would be wrong wouldn't it?

Just because you'd been planning to have sex with your partner, doesn't mean that some other person can come and have sex with you - even if you really enjoy cucumbers up the arse, you only consented to your partner doing it, not some random stranger.

You perceive the misunderstanding on his part to be genuine, even though he was sober and considered her to be very drunk, lay down next to her, had just seen his friend leave the room naked after watching him kiss her and go in the room with her.

The jury obviously considered that they couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a genuine misunderstanding.

On balance of probabilities, I don't think it was.

In your opinion, gone, was this sober man at the very least reckless as to whether he had genuine consent from this very drunk woman? And would his balls have actually fallen off if he'd done the right thing and moved away? If you meet a drunken woman in a pub trying to give you £20 because she thinks you are a cabbie, it might not be theft to take it, but it's wrong, don't you think?

Not quite sure why you've opened with "promiscuity isn't rape" either - no one said it was.

what matters is what he percieved about the woman's state of mind, I.e. who he thought she thought he was

And there is the problem with it all

Who cares what the woman actually thinks, all that matters is what the bloke thinks she thinks. God forbid a man should actually take responsibility for his actions and wait to ask the woman what she actually thinks. He should just guess, and that's fine.

I think its very odd Sam didn't realise that the woman in the bed thought he was Zack, given that he'd just seen Zack come out naked.
So when the woman started acting sexually towards him, he should have checked that she knew he was Sam, not Zack, before doing anything.
It really does seem very depersonalising to her that he would not question why she was acting sexually towards him, but instead he'd have sex with her even though he says he wasn't that interested. He just saw an opportunity for a shag and took it, showing no interest at all in the woman involved.

lass I don't know if sec 13 would apply as he wasn't deliberately impersonating? It does seem to be a misunderstanding, albeit a misunderstanding underpinned by misogyny on his part

I don't see why it didn't fail the test of what would a reasonable person believe in these circumstances, i.e. the "person on the Clapham omnibus" test. You are sober, the woman who is steaming drunk got into bed with your mate - surely a reasonable person would think at this point if she came onto him (even leaving aside his motivation for getting into the bed in the first place) "oh god, she's so drunk she thinks I'm my mate, not me".

I believe there is case law to this effect (I'm not a lawyer, so this is second hand from a conversation many years back). A man, in a sadistic attack on his wife, persuaded two of his friends to rape her, having told them that she was into rough sex and rape fantasies, and even though she would fight back she was only play-acting and they were to go ahead. The jury found them guilty on the grounds that no reasonable person would have bought such a cock-and-bull story. In other words, it's not just what the accused sincerly believes to have been the case, but whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have believed it to be the case.

Because rape is about intent, in a situation like this where the woman consented at the time. Unfortunately the nature of her problem with the accused is not so much that he had sex with her (she consented to that) but that he received her into thinking he was someone else. I.e. the context for her consent was a deception.

Promiscuity comes into it because posters were talking about him entering the room straight after his friend had left as if that was evidence of guilt. It's not although it doesn't make him appealing. Having sex with someone very drunk is not legally considered rape either, though again, it doesn't make him a nice person.

There isn't compelling evidence that he tried to make her think he was someone else. It simply isn't there. And the whole accusation of rape rests on that. Because if there was no intent to mislead, it was an unfortunate case of mistaken identity. Pretty much as if you meet someone in a club, think they're a close friend from way back, and realise afterwards that you've been mistaken.

Well the jury obviously saw it that way. The woman didnt. I wouldnt either. Would you?

Because rape is about intent

And the woman who got raped has no say in the matter. Patriarchy alive and well I see.

Personally, and not caring what the law is, I believe rape is about having someone stick their penis in you when you don't want it (no matter how much they might want to think you want it).

Actually if the law was less skewed in favour of the person accussed of rape it would clearly having impact on men's behaviour. In cases such as this, if the man had been found guilty it would send a clear message that consent has to be clearly and actively given.

In my mind the fact that she was very drunk and he was sober changes the balance of the reasonableness in this specific case.

I am uncomfortable with the whole story about the events and the fact that it was Zack who backed up the defendant's claim that he went in to the room to get her out of the flat. The whole going out of the room to get some Viagra seems rather implausible to me, this wasn't even Sam's flat, why would he believe there was Viagra in another room? It sounds like ''mates doing each other a favour". ' I've finished, do you want to have a turn now, she's very pissed and up for it" seems a much more likely explanation. They had plenty of time afterwards. when she left very distressed, to concoct a different story.

green You are being completely irrational.