Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

God that's horrific, your poor friend.

Sexual history of the victim has no place in a court of law. They are not the ones on trial.

They can disingenuously claim it's about "patterns" which give grounds for reasonable doubt all they like. The main point is to smear the victim and put her life on trial. If she's not a suitable victim, too bad.

delete

I watched that as well, i believe the 37% figure was from 2006

It may well be very out of date one way or the other now

And i have heard twice on mumsnet that past sexual history is taken into account for rape defendants.....i thought that was bollocks

Does anyone know if its true?

I was witness in my friend's rape trial - her previous sexual history was raked over and they had her in the witness box for 2 days. His was not. In fact a lot of evidence against him was deemed inadmissible by court (such as the porn he watched and then acted out on her) because it would have prejudiced the jury.

He was found guilty, but she did not have much of a previous sexual history to rake over, and I wonder now if that had an effect on the verdict. It did feel like she was on trial though.

It's bollocks. My rapist had previous sexual offence convictions but the jury wasn't even told about those.

Needless to say my (basically non existent) sexual history was raised.

Same here, WomanWith - my friend's trial, that is. He has a previous sexual conviction and it was referred to as a 'conviction' but they weren't allowed to say it was a sexual offence.

It's bizarre - it seems to be very much up to the judge on the day. I arrived in court, and was told I couldn't say certain things from my statement that were judged inadmissible, or I'd cause a mis-trial.

It makes me so angry. The justice system is institutionally misogynist, in the way rape cases are run.

I don't know about defendant's history in terms of what the law says but I can think of so many cases where once they've been found guilty their previous conduct "can now be revealed"

Vincent Tabak comes to mind. Argued and argued that he kissed Joanna Yates and it was normal fancying his neighbour and a bit of flirting that went wrong but then whoops, he accidentally strangled her. Luckily he was convicted, but only then could his collection of violent pornography featuring women being throttled be revealed.

I just can't see how it cuts one way but not the other. I'm not knowledgeable about legal stuff, but I am of the opinion that the law isn't there to protect people like me. Some people like a juicy debate about the finer points of law, but all I can feel is relief that I didn't ever bother reporting being raped (as a child of 8, nor as an adult).

Exactly! How could something like violent pirnography that featured strangulation not be deemed relevant?!

Some people like a juicy debate about the finer points of law

I always consider it in very poor taste when people come on threads like this to quibble over legal definitions, play devil's advocate or play at debating. This isn't an intellectual exercise for many of us. We've lived it. And we don't fucking appreciate being told what to think. We especially don't appreciate being told that we shouldn't worry our silly little heads because the utterly misogynist justice system can always be trusted.

Because we know it can't.

Yea WWA. I saw a quote from CE's legal person saying "oh we don't want to stop real rape victims coming forward, that wasn't our aim at all, oh no no..."

Also, I think it was you on a thread the other day saying you wondered how the defence team sleep at night. I disagreed with you and said I couldn't blame them for doing a job. Since the verdict... well I now think you are right. I certainly don't know how the appeal judges sleep at night.

I have no problem with rapists being given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. However, IMO the defence barristers who use unethical tactics, bully victims, and play on rape myths in court are despicable scum.

Here's another example of a barrister who shouldn't be able to sleep at night (but probably can, sadly):

www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2015/32/the-despicable-treatment-of-a-women-who-reported-a-rape-in-scotland

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33823225

"I just can't see how it cuts one way but not the other. "

Yes, I agree.

Perhaps it should be both or neither: if the defence asks for sexual history witnesses, so can the prosecution.

I wonder if we ought to teach and train women and girls to be more aggressive, to cause physical harm to men who assualt or rape them.
To make it the norm for a person who is not consenting to the act being committed upon them to administer great harm upon their assialant.
I expect this is a ridiculous notion for many reasonas but we can't depend upon the law to keep W&G safe.

I also wonder if this sets a worrying precedent. So if a man who had participated in a threesome like this *ist in a darkened hotel room was at some later point in time the victim of a sexual assault in similar circumstances would his previous "exploits" be fair game for the defence in order to discredit his rape claim? I mean, we all know how he likes a bit of 2 on 1/ drunken action. It is all very disturbing.

To make it the norm for a person who is not consenting to the act being committed upon them to administer great harm upon their assialant.

It would just mean that a victim that didn't administer great harm (which most women can't do against a man who is physically larger and stronger than them) was considered to be a liar.

And where does it leave child victims, elderly victims, disabled victims etc?

Self defence is already legal. But most women are not in a position to harm their rapist as much as he can harm them. If survival means compliance, that is the best strategy.

Not that I'm against rapists being harmed, but it's not realistic.

I'm not part of or linked to any women's groups or political groups (although feeling very much like I should be). I wonder if any other posters can point me in the direction of any planned action/campaigning?

I saw talk about funding civil cases but it feels like the costs would be very high in an already underfunded sector.

Are there any legal people or those who work in VAWG area who know what the position is re a legislation change? And what the discussions were last time this legislation was reviewed (under Vera Bird?)

There is a petition to ban the use of sexual history in trials, but it's not live yet:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169433

In terms of organisations that work on this issue, Rights of Women, Rape Crisis and the End Violence Against Women Coalition are the ones I'm aware of.

I agree that a specific campaign is needed regarding the use of sexual history but also the treatment of victims in court.

It would take government action for the legislation to change, so maybe a a campaign where people wrote to their MPs would be a good idea? We could draft a template letter.

Thanks. I noted the petition. I'll scan their websites to see what's happening. I have a lot of time on my hands and feel more curious as time goes by about this. Would really like to get behind a legislation review.

The VAWG cross government work is good but not enough money predictably. But its not so long ago, eg, that there were terrible govt victim blaming campaigns - which have a lot to answer for. I was having a Google to see just what was around at the time I had a bad experience and it makes me mad. Some recent examples too.

Given the legislation - which at least needs clarification even in the form of secondary legislation/practice guidance - and the terrible culture I am very much feeling the rage.

Maybe. I think engaging with existing respected groups/resources probably more useful. Ideally at least one of them is thinking about a campaign already.

Official MN pretty powerful of course.

Good, i thought i was right

Least i can argue with that now, i was fairly positive but not 100%

saw a bit if the wright show yesterday and it referred to the case but some of the phone in people were convinced that her history was relevant because his was...when it obviously wasnt

furious not curious

WomanwithAltitude
Of course, it's a ridiculous notion, I agree with you for all the reasons you stated.
But the state does not protect females. Neither does the media or our wider culture.
I sometimes dream (unreasonably) of a world where girls care conditioned to be fierce.
I am so angry on behalf of all the girls and women who are abused in this way.