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.

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.......?

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.

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.

The previous occasions didn't cause fatal injury

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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/

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.

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.

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?