Samuel Armstrong cleared of Rape.

[Londoner11]

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/943848247310934021

"the woman was captured on CCTV running through the corridors of Westminster in tears in the early hours"

Yeah, that's definitely how I end all my consensual sexual encounters.

Basically it was probably the contacting the press stuff along with perhaps stuff not publicly reported that determined the outcome of the trial.

This will be taken by the usual types as yet more evidence of how wicked women are, and that she should be prosecuted for making a false allegation and be sent to prison for the maximum penalty. There will also be the usual clamour for anonymity for the poor innocent men that these wicked women keep on accusing.

It sounds like a very difficult trial. On balance I believe her but I can see why the jury cleared him.

I'm moving more and more towards the viewpoint to that sex offence cases should be decided on a 'balance of probability' basis and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Though I have no legal training and I'm sure someone who does can tell me why that's a bad idea

I’m not sure I understand why one of the first things she did was to contact the Mail and/or the Sun? Has that been explained?

Did she contact them before the police?

Though I have no legal training and I'm sure someone who does can tell me why that's a bad idea

Because sending someone to prison for something they probably did is really fucking stupid??

WTAFisthisshit the criminal justice system evolved when women were property and it really doesn't have an answer for intimate crime, does it? I don't know what the answer is. Legal aid for civil cases (balance of probability) if criminal trials have fallen through on not beyond reasonable doubt as "he said, she said" cases often do?

I think letting people roam around who are probably a danger to the public is equally fucking stupid, but there we go.

LangCleg I think your idea would be worth exploring.

I think letting people roam around who are probably a danger to the public is equally fucking stupid, but there we go.

So why just balance of probabilities for sex offence cases then?

Why not assault?
Why not robbery?
Why not using your phone whilst driving? I mean you've probably done that.

Happy for the courts to chuck some points on your licence/ban you from driving? Or do you think they should have to prove their case?

I'm moving more and more towards the viewpoint to that sex offence cases should be decided on a 'balance of probability' basis and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Sweden are considering an interesting approach. The accused will have to prove they obtained consent, rather than the victim proving that she/he didn't consent.

WTAFisthisshit

I can't bring myself to say that you can deprive a person of their liberty if you can't prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And for intimate crimes, we know that's often impossible. Even for other crimes - when I was on jury service we acquitted someone of assault even though we thought the guy had probably done it. The evidence proving it just wasn't there.

But perhaps we can fund those types of cases to at least get a civil judgement, which would entitle the victim to compensation and get some measure of justice?

Or perhaps this type of crime could be tried in less adversarial ways than the criminal court currently does? Adopt models used in the family courts? So that it wasn't such an ordeal for the victim?

I don't think a balance of probably should be introduced into the legal system. Life is just far too weird and random for that.

I think the notion that consent can be proven is interesting. Does anyone know how Sweden are implementing this? What are they telling young people they need?

Sweden are considering an interesting approach. The accused will have to prove they obtained consent, rather than the victim proving that she/he didn't consent.

But how can one prove they had consent? In many many rape cases they only witnesses are the defendant and the complainant. It will still be one person's word against another won't it? Would they have to prove they had consent or prove they had reasonable belief in consent?

That sort of approach might have been interesting in the Ched Evans case - given the room was dark, he had never met the woman before, didn't speak to her, hadn't seen her stood up on two feet, he might have had a job proving he had consent. Indeed the first jury decided that given the circumstances he couldn't possibly have had reasonable belief in consent, but then unfortunately they found out she has had sex and enjoyed it so obvs that was him acquitted

They seem to have misreported the Sweden change in law. From The Guardian:
“The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on comments from deputy prime minister Isabella Lövin, what the law would do. The law would require people to get explicit consent before sexual contact, but it would not shift the burden of proof from the victim to the alleged attacker.”

I think there is a case for a balance of probability test in rape trials, but the consequences would need to reflect the level of the test. So (for example) rape cases could be tried in court and if the defendant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt the punishment would be criminal in nature (ie custodial sentence as today). If the allegation was only proved to a balance of probability then the sanction could not involve incarceration but ould employ other punishments - community service, financial penalties, maybe even restorative justice. In the latter case, (balance of probability conviction) the defendant would still be declared a rapist. And contrary to many views on this site, I believe being branded a rapist is highly stigmatising for all men, and something they are generally very concerned about.

Already MP's calling for it and declaring Samuel as the Victim.
twitter.com/nigelmp/status/943862775927001088

I can't bring myself to say that you can deprive a person of their liberty if you can't prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And for intimate crimes, we know that's often impossible. Even for other crimes - when I was on jury service we acquitted someone of assault even though we thought the guy had probably done it. The evidence proving it just wasn't there.

Yep, that's my point, juries are being put in the position of having to find 'not guilty' in rape cases where all 12 are 100% certain the accused did it.

I don't know what the solution is, I'm just not as comfortable with the better the guilty go free than the innocent are jailed as I am with say burglary/fraud/other property crimes.

I like your civil case proposal and the Swedish proposal also sounds interesting.

Noneedforasitter

That's interesting, so a three tier system? Not guilty, guilty on balance of probability, guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Nigel Evans is a dickwad. He's ignoring the countless women who felt brave enough to come forward when the accused was named and their own privacy was protected in favour of one man who hasn't been found guilty. As most rapists aren't.

One possibility that could work after a fashion is that:

-The crown would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sex had taken place; but
-once that had been demonstrated, it only needed to prove on the balance of probability that it was not consensual

So, in circumstances where something had definitely happened, and which looked and smelt like rape, but where there was not conclusive proof, you would still be looking at a conviction.

I don't know how that would play out in the real world. I've suggested it before on this board, and even on here there wasn't much support for it - most posters felt that it would mean innocent people going to prison, and that that was unacceptable.

The thing is, I can't see how, unless there is some fundamental change to the test, I don't see how the conviction rate will ever significantly change?

It's so bizarre to focus on the very few instances of false allegation and make it out to be a massive issue. It affects very few people and is no worse than the rates of false allegations for other crimes as far as I'm aware.

What makes rape different? Is it because the accused are always male?

Assassinated - was it bizarre how much attention was focused on the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 when we failed to stop so many IRA terrorists?

What have miscarriages of justice got to do with false allegations of rape?