"If recording my own rape isn't enough evidence, what is?"

[ReallyAngryNow]

www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/young-woman-who-recorded-herself-being-raped-by-her-ex-slams-his-acquittal/?fbclid=IwAR0wquQcg11GhrXG2mR0zdeqXrLsW6SaagR_zcTVE4pB5t90sK3At9fvQQs

NC for this because it’s in my local area and don’t want my other very outing posts linked together.

I’ve had enough of this shit. Seriously. What can we do? I feel like every day we read about rapists and abusers walking free, and very rarely hear about them ever being punished.

Your determination to refuse to say that the civil court believed that this man had raped this woman is really interesting.

but statements like "he was convicted in the civil court" are nonsense.

You're answering my questions, but I did not say that.

I asked you a question.

Your answers were pretty rude actually.

She was the pursuer in the action and the court found in her favour. The case would have been heard in front of a judge only.'

And what was it they found in her favour about, again?

I give up. You are deliberately missing the point but carry on thinking civil courts "convict people" or that the civil court "found him guilty"

Did you read the link in the op, elastic? It's pretty upsetting.

I found it upsetting anyway.

You seem to be saying this thread is disgusting and that feels really strong. What that woman went through sounds awful. The man sounds dangerous tbh so it's worrying what might happen in the future. Why is it disgusting for women to discuss this on the net? So many cases recently where men have got derisory punishments or let off when let's be honest they looked guilty as hell.

It's not interesting it's nit picking and doesn't address the issue over what can be done about any of this.

I remember discussions about setting up funds that women who want to take cases to civil court can access - do these sorts of things exist?

You're answering my questions, but I did not say that

I didn't say you did. I was not responding directly to only you. Another poster was talking about his being convicted in a civil case.

No one things that lass. We understand. My posting was sloppy, that is fair.

However, the gist is fine. The civil court in balance of probability found that she was telling the truth. Ie he had raped her.

That is pretty significant when the criminal trial with a higher burden of proof did not convict.

You will not state what the civil court was about, what it meant, that they found for her.

Can't you bring yourself to write it?

That she was telling the truth, he had raped her. That makes him a rapist. Right?

'I remember discussions about setting up funds that women who want to take cases to civil court can access - do these sorts of things exist?'

Plenty of arguments for and against.

If they exist though, I will donate.

The court considered he'd raped her, isn't that right, which is why it found in her favour? It didn't result in a conviction, because they don't deal with criminal allegations,, but they do award damages for harm - the harm in this case being rape.

My point exactly, Erythronium

Not sure why Lass has got such a bee in the bonnet about it.

What was the civil claim? Personal injury?

MenuPlant

Your determination to refuse to say that the civil court believed that this man had raped this woman is really interesting

I have not refused to say that. Quite the opposite actually. I said she was the pursuer in the action and the Court found in her favour. Do please explain how you have managed to twist that in to a refusal to say the civil court believed her. It is patently obvious by the fact she won her case that the court believed her - if it hadn't she would have lost.

Not sure why Lass has got such a bee in the bonnet about it.

Because I am a solicitor and as so frequently said on here words have meaning. Statements such as "convicted in a civil court" or "found guilty in a civil court" are nonsense.

What was the civil claim? Personal injury?

Yes - the damages awarded were £80,000

The court considered he'd raped her, isn't that right, which is why it found in her favour? It didn't result in a conviction, because they don't deal with criminal allegations,, but they do award damages for harm - the harm in this case being rape

And the penny has dropped. That is factually and legally correct. Guilty and convicted have meanings. It is so often said on here that words can't change their meaning just to suit- except when it does suit.

There's details here Riddley:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/05/scottish-civil-court-rules-that-acquitted-man-did-student

"In an 84-page ruling, the sheriff said he found that soon after 2am on Saturday 14 September 2013 “the defender took advantage of the pursuer when she was incapable of giving meaningful consent because of the effects of alcohol, but he continued to do so even after she manifested distress and a measure of physical resistance, and that he raped her”.

Describing Miss M as a “cogent and compelling witness”, Weir added that her description of becoming conscious to find Coxen having sex with her, her distress and her attempts to push him away before he forced her to have oral sex was “the very antithesis of the kind of willing, freely chosen, active, co-operative, participation which consent is supposed to connote”."

Also:

"In 2016-17, only 39% of Scottish rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions – the lowest rate for any type of crime."

39% is a pitiful conviction rate.

And even worse (15%) in N Ireland.

As I said earlier, the justice system is not fit for women who are trying to get justice for rape.

menu

Elastic is saying the fact that the repist wasnt found guilty is disgusting

Can we not be sidetracked please

Weve had a goady fucker

Someone making up bollocks

And a foray into correct legal terms

Would be quite nice to get back into the point of the thread

Is there anything that can be done about cases like this? Or the current defence being used

Is it purely down to the normalisation of certain sexual practices or a handy excuse

but it's like people forget that the people who make the decisions... the jury... are members of public

Whoever posted that has a point. The decision in this criminal trial was made by a jury of 15 members of the public.

You can rail at the court system all you like but it was at least 8 of those 15 people who were not convinced by what they heard.

And I would put money on there having been a majority of female jurors.

Those are the "good" cases too aren't they Zebra? The ones they think will result in a conviction. And they still can't even match the conviction rate for other crimes.

Thank you @Rufusthebewilderedreindeer that's exactly what I meant. @MenuPlant read what I actually wrote before getting on your soapbox.

All you say is true lass,but it misses the point that jurors- like the rest of the public- have stereotyped ideas about how typical rapists and rape survivors behave that are simply wrong. I have dealt with thousands of victims of assault, and very few of them behave as popular stereotypes suggest. So, though you are right to say the majority of the jury wasn't convinced whenever a someone accused of rape is acquitted, there has still been a miscarriage of justice in the wider sense (as opposed to within the court process) if the acquittal occurred due to misplaced beliefs about rape.

I don't blame defence barristers: they have a professional duty to offer the most effective defence that the law & court rules permit. I blame a legal system that allows cases to turn on incorrect and harmful stereotypes. These have been effectively challenged in other jurisdictions, so why not here?

I blame a legal system that allows cases to turn on incorrect and harmful stereotypes

Yes

A few months ago I read a thread where someone had suggested that before a rape trial starts, the jury should first have to have a day of training to break down myths. Explaining that often women freeze, so that when the defence say 'why didn't you scream?' the jury are aware that a failure to scream doesn't mean that consent was given, that sort of thing.

But posters with legal backgrounds said there was a sound legal reason why that shouldn't and can't be done. I can't remember what the reason was though. Can anyone explain it for me? I remember thinking at the time 'oh, I hadn't thought of it like that'.