"Rough sex defence": CPS won't press charges

[Lamahaha]

I'm sorry I don't think this is a share token; I did try!

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cps-backed-off-assault-charge-over-fear-of-rough-sex-defence-nk6ghgcs8

Prosecutors declined to pursue charges against a man accused of assault because of fears he would claim it was consensual sexual behaviour — a decision that will intensify pressure to outlaw the “rough sex gone wrong” defence.

Horrendous. The CPS are proving to be a major barrier to getting any kind of justice for women. Is there something we can do to get them to change their minds I wonder?

I genuinely don't understand this. It seems to suggest that the CPS don't want to outlaw the "rough sex gone wrong" defence?

Someone might assume that the CPS don’t like women...

Share token:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fb7c4f78-a1e6-11ea-b8ef-bc1da708794a?shareToken=61c8257409458e71a6b4d0c315aed877

Hm.

On the other hand CPS would love to take action to criminalise eleven year old little girls for being unhappy about having to undress in front of a male classmate, or change her tampons in the same bathroom as him.

They're dead keen to press charges about that kind of thing.

Isn't it funny how justice and fairness in this country has become predicated on whether or not you were born with a penis? It's like sex exists and everybody knows it, or something.

Awful.

“the suspect could say you consented to these assaults”

Isn't this an oxymoron (or something)?
Consent to be assaulted??

It's victim blaming which has been basically a cornerstone of our legal system used against women to protect men since forever.

When will times change? When will women ever be heard?

Ever get the idea it’s almost ‘punishment’ for ‘loose women’ having sex? I can bet a man murdered by a woman in similar circumstances would be charged.

A woman simply wouldn't get away with a "rough sex gone wrong" defense anyway because women are the ones who aren't believed.

Male supremacism.

It's always fucking male supremacism. Humans born with penises (they don't have to keep them, the status stays) are always more intrinsically valuable, pitiable, worthy, believable and important than humans born female.

Yes, a man murdered by a woman would be treated differently, can you see anyone sympathising with a woman talking about rough sex gone wrong? Or worrying about what charges might do to her future, or wittering about how she's a lovely woman and what drove her to it?

And then we wonder why hundreds of girls in the UK are frantically trying to find a way out of having to grow up female in this society.

Horrific. Defence looks dodgy, best not prosecute.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

So it doesn't matter what a woman says, she can be black and blue and bloody, but if the bloke says 'she wanted it' he's the one believed.

I don't know why I'm surprised after the recent cases - but at least those got to court.

We don't know what a woman is, but we know exactly who can be beaten and raped with no consequence.

The letter from the CPS to the alleged victim in the assault case stated: “A prosecution could follow in relation to this offence, but the courts have shown an interest in changing the law so that the suspect could say that you consented to these assaults. This would be difficult to disprove,” citing the specifics of the case.
Last time I looked it is parliament that changes laws not courts. Whoever wrote this should be sacked.
It's not in the public interest, no only 50% of the public's interest. This is institutional misogyny.

The CPS are appalling on women's and girls' rights.

I genuinely don't understand this. It seems to suggest that the CPS don't want to outlaw the "rough sex gone wrong" defence?

There is existing case law which says that you cannot use consent as a defence to serious injury, but court decisions since have diluted its effect. We (WCCTT) have said throughout that case law is not up to the task it is being put to.

The CPS have said in this UNBELIEVABLE letter that because the courts seem to want to overturn that case law, the CPS will not prosecute this case because the man will likely win, and be able to say the woman consented.

And because there will be lengthy evidence in court of the sex and violence she is supposed to have consented to (the CPS are currently right on this latter point).

We are asking for law change - so for parliament to make the law clear on "rough sex" defences, rather than leaving it to the courts, and this CPS letter shows why this is needed.

and be able to say the woman consented.

I honestly, honestly don't understand this. The woman is right there (well, unless she was murdered, as has happened all too often) - you can ask her if she consented. It's like being back in the dark ages - a woman's word counting only half a man's

It's MINDBENDING. We're finishing our research doc on this but this is an example of what happens in non-fatal assaults

In Lock [2016] , the accused’s defence to assault causing ABH was that she consented to being beaten with a rope as part of a master slave arrangement, inspired by “Fifty Shades of Grey”. Although consent should have been no defence to this ABH charge, evidence was given on both her sexual history, and his defence set out that “the issue is 'did she consent and did Mr Lock believe that she consented?' Is this an assault any more than a mistimed tackle in football?”. Lock was found not guilty by the jury, although he was jailed the following year for assaulting his new partner, which was his seventh domestic violence conviction.

sorry [2013]

link

Although consent should have been no defence to this ABH charge, evidence was given on both her sexual history, and his defence set out that “the issue is 'did she consent and did Mr Lock believe that she consented?' Is this an assault any more than a mistimed tackle in football?”.

Fucking appalling

And then we wonder why hundreds of girls in the UK are frantically trying to find a way out of having to grow up female in this society.

Absolutely.

Evidence given on her sexual history...

Are they now suggesting a women who previously had sex, wanted it, enjoyed it, has no defence to later abuse??

I thought sexual history was supposed to be inadmissible except in extraordinary circumstances.

JFC.

What a shit analogy tackling is for sex. Unless there is a kind of sex between 2 men where they each try to be the one to fuck the other first?

I thought sexual history was supposed to be inadmissible except in extraordinary circumstances.

It's admissible in common assault, ABH, GBH, manslaughter, murder - so any rough sex claim in a violence charge can result in sexual history and her name being published in the news