Man claims he was sleepwalking when he abused 2 children...

[freespeechforwomen]

and a jury believed him!

www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/sleepwalking-belfast-man-cleared-sexually-14468644

This was posted on the Rugby rape case thread and rather than derail it I'm posting it here. It took the jury of 7 men and 5 women 3 hours to clear him.

Words fail me...

It’s difficult to judge, not having been on the jury myself.

It sounds like a convenient lie but obviously the jury found it compelling enough.

I don’t know!

If the judges summing up has been reported word for word then it is self contradictory

Mrs McKay told the jury in her summing up: “If you are sure that this man went into the bedroom and touched the girls in a sexual manner, and you are sure it happened, then you would find him guilty.

“The fact that it happened is not in dispute.

I mean it’s Undeniable that he touched these girls. He was let off because they couldnt prove that he did it on purpose.

Bloody hell. That's an open door to excuse all sorts of crime. Bet it wouldn't be allowed for embezzlement or something like that.

Or had those girls actually been a middle aged man. Although I strongly suspect the terrible accident wouldn't have happened in the same way

Automatism is a long established defence in law though. It’s based on the rule that people can’t be held criminally responsible for their actions where they had no mens rea.

Whether it was genuine here of course who knows although it seems he adduced evidence on it and the jury believed it

DH suffers from automatism. He blacked my eyes and broke my nose (and his own hand in the process) once. He has done all manner of other things too which he would never do whilst awake. You often can't tell he's asleep.

So, the condition exists and theoretically, it's possible. I have no knowledge of this case though.

I suppose it's the 'beyond reasonable doubt', and a genuine history of sleepwalking provides that doubt.

I would hope that this keep-out-of-jail card could only be played once - whether the molestation was deliberate or truly unconscious- it is surely the responsibility of this man to ensure that he never allows himself to be in the position where this could happen again.

Its scary to think people may be able to lie and use this defense to get avoid being punished.
But then its also scary to think that people would be prosecuted for doing something they did involuntarily while asleep.

If you have a history of sleepwalking and having no control over your actions then perhaps sleeping in a house with two little girls isn’t the most responsible of behaviours? I hope very much he puts a lock on his bedroom door in the future and sleeps on his own.

This is not the first time that a man has successfully used this defence around sexual abuse / rape.

It's interesting as clearly the girls have been a victim of crime, they have been sexually assaulted. That is a fact. This is the man who sexually assaulted them. That is also a fact. And yet, no crime has been committed... because... and yet from the victim's point of view, it has. They don't become un-sexually assaulted if he was asleep.

On that.

I I accidentally drive through a red light and hit someone, I can't say oh but it was an accident and everyone goes oh ok fine then. (Well hopeully not - it happens though!).

If this defence is true, and this man sleepwalks, then he should have taken due care and precautions, lest something happens to him or someone else while he sleeps. He didn't take any precuations and two girls have been sexually assaulted, He did it.

Whole thing feels very peculiar to me.

In general I find that there is no end to the inventiveness of men who sexually attack, and the credulity of judges and juries. "I fell on her and my penis went in her vagina" being a partcularly good one. Or "I didn't understand No as I don't speak English". Or that Italian calssic "she had skinny jeans on so I couldn't have raped her". And on it goes.

My impression is there's no such thing as mens rea in sexual assault or rape.

Only men who were asleep at the time, or who fell on their victim and accidentally penetrated her, or who 'reasonably' believed themselves to have consent because [insert crap excuse here]

I accidentally drive through a red light and hit someone, I can't say oh but it was an accident and everyone goes oh ok fine

Well no, but that’s not really the appropriate comparison, which would be more like if you temporarily lost consciousness and went through the red light (evidential difficulties in establishing that defence aside)

Do people agree th e judges summing up is wrong? Assuming reported correctly. I have done jury service, a rape case, and th e judge went into detail of what was fact, and what was for us to decide based on evidence and led us down the different verdict based on what we decided

I am sorry, but I do not, on any fucking level, believe the "sleepwalking" excuse.
Automatism covers a whole range of stuff as a term, and is a phrase in law used to cover a whole range of crimes/accidents.

"If a defendant can show that they committed a crime as the result of an involuntary act they may be able to plead the defence of automatism"

This could cover everything from sleepwalking naked in your street through having a seizure at the wheel, abusing children in your sleep to murdering your wife.

The problem is, how do you stop this being abused as a defence?
How do you prove it?
Cos IME with a couple of abusive partners....they used to do stuff to me and claim they were "asleep" and not aware.
At the time I believed them.

But knowing now how abusive they were day to day, I don't believe they were asleep. It was a convenient shut down.

For me, this was a telling paragraph though from the article, and leads me to believe the defence was utter bullshit......

During an interview with police, one of the girl’s recounted a conversation she had with Simpson after what he had done to her.

He allegedly told her: “If your mum phones the police I will get arrested, I will lose my job, lose my house and lose my kids.’’

I realise this is pure do exultation but I do wonder how this would have gone if there had been a large middle aged man in the bed

Speculation

Other sleepwalkling rape

I'm sure there was another as well that i remember.

Christ if you google there's loads of them.

I had no idea it was a thing. I reckoned it was such an outrageous defence to suggest that I was horrified that a jury convicted.
Those poor children - this is is such a depressing day...

I mean for fuck sake... we live in a society where this is considered an actual credible defence....

Accidentally Tripped and penetrated teen