Ending "Rough Sex" defences - Harriet Harman is taking action

[WomanDaresTo]

Hello. I have some very hopeful news on ending the successful use of "rough sex" as a defence to the death or injury of women and girls (with 56 killed, and many more injured, in the UK)

Harriet and Mark Garnier, the local MP for Natalie Connolly and her family, have published a piece today on rough sex defences. They propose to add to the Domestic Abuse Bill to explicitly consider these cases.

"For years, men got away with murder claiming that “she asked for it”. Cynically known amongst barristers as the “nagging and shagging defence” this excuse for violent men was shut down only as recently as 2009. We now have the modern version of “she was asking for it”. It’s time we shut that down too and we can by adding it to the Domestic Abuse Bill."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rough-sex-murder-harriet-harman_uk_5d309e09e4b020cd9940533c

I'm THRILLED to see this, and once we understand more on the proposals, will make sure we organise to give this the best chance of success. (lots of caveats to come - e.g. it's a long way from law yet, and it won't apply to Scotland- but still thrilled)

to all of you who've helped We Can't Consent To This so far.

have they had the debate though? is it too late to contact MPs?

This is the time! The bill has a long way to go yet: to "commitee stage", then a report, then 3rd reading, then all the same again in the House of Lords. Could take a couple of months. But it's so important these new amendments get support now.

They had the "Second Reading" of the bill last week - it isn't a debate so much as a place to present the bill. You can see clips here or the whole thing here. It's all worth watching, it's incredible to hear. And has the extremely moving piece from Rosie Duffield MP on her experience. I am so pleased that Rosie supports these "rough sex" defence amendments.

BTW I found this useful in my crash course in parliament stages: www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/

thanks, I'll write

THANK YOU SO MUCH

easy details for anyone who wants them

Oh this is really good news. Thanks to the families, the MPs, the women groups and to everyone working hard to make this happen. I will gladly write to my MP to ask them to support.

If anyone wants to point their MPs towards media coverage of relevant cases, these threads collate and discuss them. (it goes without saying that these women’s killings are very distressing to read about.):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332144-Why-is-he-crying-Laura-Huteson-death?pg=1&order=

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3425178-Another-woman-consents-to-sex-death

You are all brilliant. I would like to say again that this entire campaign came from mumsnet - there would be none of this momentum without you.

sawdust there is no such defense in the first place.

Tell that to:

• two juries who acquitted
• several judges who considered the sexual violence surrounding women's deaths to be mitigating circumstances instead of aggravating circumstances when sentencing
• the families who saw their daughters' killers prosecuted for manslaughter instead of murder.

Mark G is my MP. I'm not usually terribly impressed with him, but I am very pleased with his work here and grateful on behalf of future partners of abusive men wishing to use a rough sex defence. I hope Natalie's friends and family are able to find a little comfort in the knowledge that she did not die entirely in vain.

Woman thanks for making it happen. Thanks all for the links as well.
Wow that Rosie Duffield MP speech is powerful. It made me cry watching her delivering it there in the Commons chamber, giving voice there to her experience.

Agree -and in the case of Natalie Connolly, the jurors approached both the Natalie's family and Harriet Harman as they were "dismayed" that a murder charge had not been pursued against John Broadhurst.

As a reminder he was sentenced to 3 years 8 months for her manslaughter, she died with terrible injuries alone at the bottom of their stairs.

And we've found that in 45% of cases, these defences work: they result in the killing being prosecuted with a lesser charge, or not treated as a crime at all. And there has been a tenfold increase in "consent" defences to violent injury and killing in the last ten years. The law should be clear, but to claim consensual activity "gone wrong” gives a good chance of a lesser charge, lighter sentence, or a death not being investigated as a crime at all.

Whatever his wider politics, Mark Garnier is deeply exercised by Natalie's case - he is her family's MP as well as hers. His whole piece at the Second Reading is here, it is troubling and important to listen to as it has details not said before about Natalie:
parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5f4a4245-ed81-4d19-af77-8df7f8db4cb7?in=16:08:36

He gives full credit to Harriet Harman for doing the politics bit too.

reminder to hurl off an email to your MP

BUMP for the morning crowd

It's working! Please please take a couple of mins to send your MP a short note to support Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier's clauses

wecantconsenttothis.uk/actnow

Thank you so much for this reminder. I've emailed my MP who I v much hope would be supporting it anyway, given that she's the shadow home secretary... Fantastic campaign. So important.

sawdust there is no such defence in the first place.

Tell that to:
two juries who acquitted

If two juries acquitted it would not have been because the victim had consented. There is no such defence. This was firmly decided in the Spanner case in the House of Lords (this court was later renamed the Supreme Court, but it remains the same thing).

It seems to me that what these trials centre on, is whether the defendant having killed someone intended to so kill / or intended to cause grievous bodily harm (and it was then this injury that caused the death).

If either of these two facts are found, then the defendant is guilty of murder. If there was no such intention found by the jury, then its manslaughter.

Harman’s amendments will not effect such trails one iota.

The Natalie Connolly case was slightly different. There, the prosecution decided that it didn’t have the evidence that the defendant had killed her – so it was neither murder nor straight manslaughter, but it was decided he ought to have realised that she was dying, due to the state she was in through alcohol, drugs and the injuries he had caused (these injuries not being the cause of death) but which meant that he had a duty to then help and call for medical assistance. With that duty on him, his failure to help meant he was guilty of manslaughter through gross negligence.

several judges who considered the sexual violence surrounding women's deaths to be mitigating circumstances instead of aggravating circumstances when sentencing

Yes, and by that point the verdict was in and the Judge had moved on to the sentence.

the families who saw their daughters' killers prosecuted for manslaughter instead of murder

Killers fall into two categories – as above - those guilty of murder and those guilty of manslaughter. Everyone gets a fair trial to decide which.

Thank you for bumping this and for anyone who has does not understand why this law change is needed, even when there is case law which should be clear, please read this briefing.

The additional clauses proposed are modest, in putting case law into statue so it is clear to everyone in the criminal justice system that these defences cannot be used. And asking for Director of Public Prosecutions review if a lesser charge is being considered.

Natalie's case was actually fairly typical, it's not always clear that the allegedly consensual activity solely and directly caused the woman's death.

And we are doing this because we see failures at every stage of the criminal justice system, with police assuming deaths are accidental "non crimes", coroners proposing women died in a sex game, crime scene officers later fired for negligence in assuming murders were accidents, defence lawyers introducing the "sex game" claim, prosecutors chickening out of charges, judges failing to apply case law in the way you'd expect and allowing sexual sadism to be treated as a mitigating factor in sentencing. A reminder: 45% of the time these defences work. And there is always a huge cost to the women, their families, even with a murder conviction.

If you haven't yet chucked an email to your MP, here is a defence lawyer in one of these cases to remind you how angry you are:

Donald Finlay QC said that the incident which led to the death of Mrs McDonald was a "private matter" and that this was sex that "narrow-minded people would call kinky".
She died with terrible internal injuries - he hid her body, had been financially and emotionally abusive, and received a 4 year sentence for killing her.

THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING ACTION

sawdust wecantconsenttothis.uk/news/do-these-defences-work

Laura Hutson's case where the guy kept a knife under his pillow was clearly premeditated, why else did he keep a knife there? Yet the court accepted his excuse that it was a sex game gone wrong. The "she consented" defence is getting premeditated murders downgraded to manslaughter.

I have emailed.

I'm with you. I just want to ask, what is your response to consensual acts that carry minimal risk but could conceptually or conceivably lead to risk? For example fisting which unintendedly leads to injury?

Will do woman
🍷for you work in this

several judges who considered the sexual violence surrounding women's deaths to be mitigating circumstances instead of aggravating circumstances when sentencing

Yes, and by that point the verdict was in and the Judge had moved on to the sentence.

Which should have been longer, not shorter, because you're meant to look after your partners, not stab or strangle them. "Sex that went wrong" should be an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one.

written to my MP- please everyone do this

"Sex that went wrong" should be an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one.

^ This x1000
Have written to my MP too.

The carotid artery hold is lethal force in law enforcement.
When considering intent, the perp knows or should have known that the carotid artery hold is lethal force.
Using the carotid artery hold is evidence of intent.

Is this the same HH who argued in favour of PIE