Radio 5 Live - good piece on rough sex

[BlindYeoSees]

Emma Barnett on Radio 5 live just did a great piece on domestic abuse and the rough sex defence.

She had the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on, Nicole Jacobs. She was great. I didn't actually know there was a DA commissioner.

The talked all about the rough sex legal defence and "We Can't Consent To This" and Nicole was really clear and calm. They also talked about the Domestic Abuse Bill.

No stupid idiot on to counter it all with "yes but women love sexual violence innit". Just a good piece all round.

[QuentinWinters]

But what this isn't - it isn't a case where a defendant seeks a defence to murder because of consent by the victim. Such a defence doesn't exist - and probably never has.
If that's the case, why was her interest in BDSM ever relevant?

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

But what this isn't - it isn't a case where a defendant seeks a defence to murder because of consent by the victim. Such a defence doesn't exist - and probably never has.

That's wilfully obtuse. No one is saying that people are claiming she consented to being murdered.

[sawdustformypony]

Erm, it did. Alcohol intoxication and blunt force injuries. Either of which could have killed her.

As it says in the sentencing remarks, (and without looking back at the exact words) the bleeding might/would/possibly have been fatal had it continued - but she died before that point. This was the evidence of the experts based on their collective experiences.

He could have prevented the latter from being fatal had he got her medical care instead of harrumphing and going to bed!

He could have prevented her death had he contacted emergency services - that was the opinion of the court too - but he didn't and he was found guilty of negligent manslaughter as opposed to straight forward manslaughter - and went to jail for his crime.

But what this isn't - it isn't a case where a defendant seeks a defence to murder because of consent by the victim. Such a defence doesn't exist - and probably never has.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

I'm only going by the only reliable source of the facts out there - the Judge's sentencing remarks. Earlier reports include the coroners verdict, including in the court case.

www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2018/11/28/victim-suffered-potentially-fatal-blood-loss-jury-told/

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Did the last occasion cause fatal injury ? Expert opinion evidence suggested not. Erm, it did. Alcohol intoxication and blunt force injuries. Either of which could have killed her. He could have prevented the latter from being fatal had he got her medical care instead of harrumphing and going to bed!

[sawdustformypony]

but they also showed she had lost enough blood to kill her

I've not seen this - I'm only going by the only reliable source of the facts out there - the Judge's sentencing remarks. The Judge makes no reference to a fatal loss of blood. Are you able to provide a link to your source ?

In any case, why does this case always focus on her....shouldn't do - the law needs to look at all the evidence. I am just replying to FannyCann's post on the evidence for cause of death.

not least because he didnt get medical help - that's precisely why he received an immediate custodial sentence of 3 years and several months.

[Languishingfemale]

Well said Quentin Winters. Amazing how many men are so keen to defend the indefensible. Hopefully they're not parents.

[QuentinWinters]

Did the last occasion cause fatal injury ? Expert opinion evidence suggested not.
That's not true. Expert opinion couldn't rule out death due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed but they also showed she had lost enough blood to kill her. So cause of death undecided - doesn't mean her injury wasn't fatal.

In any case, why does this case always focus on her when the evidence shows that 1,) he was upset about her flirting with other men 2) she was very very drunk and on drugs 3) he left her bleeding and unconscious at the bottom of the stairs at approx 3am 4) he woke up at 6am but didnt call an ambulance until 9am

He is absolute scum, and certainly should be held responsible for her death, not least because he didnt get medical help when he saw how badly she was breathing.

[sawdustformypony]

The previous occasions didn't cause fatal injury

Did the last occasion cause fatal injury ? Expert opinion evidence suggested not.

[sawdustformypony]

In any case whether or not a person had previously "enjoyed" rough sex is irrelevant in my view.

I don't think it can be completely dismissed as irrelevant - the amount of weight to give each and every piece of evidence is down to the members of the jury.

[FannyCann]

You need to look at the evidence as a whole. If this means looking at evidence of the victim's interests in the past, then so be it.

Was there evidence that Natalie enjoyed rough sex in previous relationships?
I believe she had been observed to have bruises inflicted by Broadhurst on previous occasions.
But I see no reason to accept evidence from the perpetrator that the victim enjoyed rough sex. I imagine many women endure rough sex with an abusive partner. They may even claim to enjoy it or be dismissive of the extent of the harm. That I would think would be evidence of being stuck in an abusive relationship rather than evidence of just loving a good beating.

In any case whether or not a person had previously "enjoyed" rough sex is irrelevant in my view. The previous occasions didn't cause fatal injury.
No one consents to death. Partners have (or should have) a duty of care not to kill the person they are having sex (rough or otherwise) with.

[sawdustformypony]

The solution is to make the law the same for all 'consent to harm' crimes.

If you cannot consent to various piercings and body mods then you can't consent to physical harm during sex.

If you CAN consent to physical harm during sex then you should also be able to get those piercings and body modifications.

There's a bit more 'grey' (no pun intented) in real life.

In the Spanner case - the case law from the House of Lords, the Judges looked firstly at the reason for the injuries. In the facts of the spanner case, wounds consistent with GBH were being inflicted on a group of 'consenting' gay friends. Some people say that the ruling in this case might have been different had they not been gay. (there were two dissenting voices amongst the judges - I've only ever glanced at them but think they were saying that the law shouldn't interfere to criminialise if you have consenting adults FULL STOP)

Another thing they said - going back to your point about universality was that the ruling only applied to some activities - sex ? bad bad bad...it doesn't, for example, apply to sports such as boxing (one of the main aims is to cause brain damage in your opponent FFS) , judo, karate, rugby etc.

Now, there is this ruling from 2019 about 'certain' body modifications - not all obvs, as poking holes into peoples earlobes, lips and nostrils to insert rings is perfectly legal.

....is that lunch over already.......?

[sawdustformypony]

Is it easy to know the difference between a murder/manslaughter and genuine accidental death? (Genuine questions, not being facetious )

You need to look at the evidence as a whole. If this means looking at evidence of the victim's interests in the past, then so be it. Its not as some see it as 'slut-shaming', its trying to get to the truth as to what happened using as true a picture of the background as possible.

[Patte]

Thanks for explaining, I was starting to doubt my own memory.

You're probably right about the male/female victims thing, although I also tend to think it's partly because everything sexual is now approached from the point of view of consent, and only consent, so no one wants to point out that something that (in theory at least) two consenting adults might do sexually might be illegal.

It's interesting, because as you point out, we don't treat other situations like that.

I think this is a mistake, and we should take consent as a necessary but not sufficient condition for sexual activity.

[QuentinWinters]

However, during the trial it was shown that the CPS didn't have evidence that he had caused Natalie's death. Broadhurst had caused injuries to Connolly but the Court heard evidence from expert witnesses that these injuries hadn't caused her death

This isnt quite how it was reported at the time. Reporting suggests the CPS decided to withdraw the murder charge

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/natalie-connolly-john-broadhurst-case-trial-murder-rough-sex-domestic-violence-manslaughter-a8690961.html%3famp

www.tuckerssolicitors.com/john-broadhurst-found-not-guilty-of-attacking-natalie-connolly/

I can see how that happened given the amount she had drunk. But like rape trials, now the fact she enjoyed rough sex and wanted what happened to her is the narrative because of the verdict against him. It isnt fair and she can't defend herself

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

It is true, and a recent case about body modification reinforced it.

It just isn't applied to 'rough sex' cases.

If you were a cynic you might be inclined to think this discrepency is due to the maleness of the perpetrator and femaleness of the victims!

But hey! The bod mod people were all men... maybe how a man looks is more important than whether a woman breathes.

[Patte]

I have a thing I don't understand here. My sex ed was actually pretty rudimentary - in fact, nowadays it would probably be considered not nearly enough. However, I did know before I even got to adulthood that (in the UK) legally you can't consent to be hurt, let alone killed.

Is this not true? Did it use to be true but isn't anymore? Is it true but somehow this is still a defence against murder rather than manslaughter?

And if this is true, wouldn't it be a good idea to include it in sex ed? But then I'm an old fuddy duddy who thinks we should make a much bigger deal out of the age of consent in sex ed. Then maybe everyone would have realised that those poor girls in Rotherham et al didn't have boyfriends, they had rapists.

[ACatWhoBinds]

@Languishingfemale I see your point but it can be very hard to gauge - like people who die of autoerotic asphyxiation. The line between safe and dangerous is very thin.
@CuriousaboutSamphire, that makes a lot of sense and I agree with you on it. Having the one law that covers all 'consent to harm' actions would simplify it a lot too

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

The solution is to make the law the same for all 'consent to harm' crimes.

If you cannot consent to various piercings and body mods then you can't consent to physical harm during sex.

If you CAN consent to physical harm during sex then you should also be able to get those piercings and body modifications.

But that would take some joined up thinking and a judiciary that doesn't believe a man can accidentally trip up and land penis first in any part of a woman's genitals.

[Languishingfemale]

ACatWhoBinds
The solution is that nobody engages in any sexual practice that leads to someone's death. And if they die, then it's a murder charge.. Nobody consents to being killed during sex.

[ACatWhoBinds]

What do you think the solution is? I understand that it's a shit defence but what about people who do enjoy BDSM/breath play etc.? I sometimes like to do it. Is it easy to know the difference between a murder/manslaughter and genuine accidental death? (Genuine questions, not being facetious ☺️)

[WomanDaresTo]

However, during the trial it was shown that the CPS didn't have evidence that he had caused Natalie's death. Broadhurst had caused injuries to Connolly but the Court heard evidence from expert witnesses that these injuries hadn't caused her death. So the murder charge was abandoned or the judge directed the jury to acquit him of it - either way he was found not guilty of murder.

Hi - that's one story.

I'd recommend listening to Mark Garnier - MP for Natalie and her family - on what actually happened.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5f4a4245-ed81-4d19-af77-8df7f8db4cb7?in=16:08:35

A CPS prosecutor went to Natalie's family and asked them to agree to the prosecutor's decision to offer Broadhurst a manslaughter charge. I agree that there was not concrete evidence that her injuries had killed her - there was too much blood for that.


Strikingly jurors approached the family on the steps of the court, and Harriet harman, to say that they were appalled - that they would have convicted him of murder.

Bearing in mind also that Broadhurst had come down in the morning, stepped over natalie's body, eaten breakfast, washed the car, and only then called emergency services.

The CPS also did not pursue any specific charges (e.g. GBH, ABH) related to his beating of Natalie - which he claimed she had consented to as part of rough sex.

What we are desperately concerned about in Natalie Connolly's case, and in all other homicides and non-fatal assaults which have injuries claimed to be from "rough sex", is that the claim successfully deflects more serious charges. Police decline to investigate, prosecutors opt for lesser charges, or don't charge at all where "consent" is claimed.

In the proposed DA Bill amendments, prosecutors in a future Natalie connolly case would have to have DPP approval before dropping a murder charge - to ensure that families like natalie's are not asked to make that decision, and prosecutors must justify why a lesser charge is appropriate.

We're keen to hear other ways that could reduce the success of these claims if you have them - contact form on our site wecantconsenttothis.uk/aboutus

[Languishingfemale]

Thank you for posting that ArranUpsideDown

Wealthy men and their allies being so excited to have found a get out for murdering women is always a depressing read.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Sawdust Thank you! I had some muddled version of that in my head, I remember being puzzled, outraged and disheartened at the time. I hadn't got the facts separated from the media fiction.

I have now. Thank you

[ArranUpsideDown]

Barrister Julian Norman had some interesting points about what reform might look like (@ pg 7 of the then contemporaneous thread):

"There has been much said about the judge's sentencing remarks, which can be found here [LINK]. However, in the context of the sentencing guidelines [LINK], little argument can be made. The judge's job is to sentence "without fear or favour, affection or ill will" and however much ill will we as a society may bear Broadhurst for the entirely avoidable death of a woman, the judge cannot depart from the guidelines unless there are truly exceptional circumstances - and even then, would likely be appealed. The only part at which a lawyer might raise an eyebrow is the full one third discount for a guilty plea when that plea came so late.

And yet there is no way that this sentence appears fair, just or proportionate. A woman was brutally assaulted and died, due to a man's inactions in calling emergency services which could have saved her, and his actions which included not just beating her, but also inserting a bottle of carpet cleaner into her vagina, causing the ruptured artery when he broke it to get it out. The judge noted that she was so drunk as to be staggering and talking 'gobbledygook' before passing out: the decision by the CPS to offer no evidence on the assault by penetration sits very uneasily with the comments on her state of intoxication. The sentencing remarks appear to take Broadhurst's evidence of her desire for these activities at face value - her evidence, as always where a woman dies, is not available. Would it be too much to assume that women never consent to death?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3456679--TRIGGER-WARNING-Powerful-message-from-a-midwife-re-the-murder-of-Natalie-Connolly-TRIGGER-WARNING