"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.

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?
For another day but SO MUCH of legal thinking is based on the idea of men scuffling outside a hostelry, or engaging in contact sports like rugger, or even gay men in consensual sadomasochism*

It does not read across to men committing acts of serious and sustained intimate violence against women.

*this was the case law that decided consent is no defence to serious injury, the one that the CPS think the courts will soon overturn.

God it is shocking how we have gone back in time to all this shit.
It seems like a dream, and I can't remember when those times were, perhaps it's a figment of my imagination but I'm sure I remember a time when the CPS was worried about the poor conviction rates in rape cases, and there was publicity about issues like whether the woman had capacity to consent eg being too drunk to consent = rape.

That poor woman.

@WomanDaresTo
I sent three We Can't Consent to This T shirts to my daughter and her friend and BF who have been locked down together in their flat at uni.
Her friend just sent me a lovely thank you letter -
"Thank you so much for the T shirt...the campaign is so important and I'm keeping up to date with the developments on their social media platforms". I had a nice photo of them all proudly wearing the Ts too, but obviously can't post.

Thank you for all you're doing - even last year when you started this I didn't imagine the CPS taking disgraceful decisions like this one.

Another aspect to this is that this is about the CPS and their stats. ie because they are aware of male prejudice against women they suspect the women wouldn't be believed and they dont want a lost case on their tally for the year.

Part of the vicious circle that means for women it isn't simple about justice but about whether the male view of the world can be sufficiently challenged to secure women's rights.

We know that the CPS use this assessment when deciding which cases of rape to take to court.

To them it is just about their data.

Link to the shop for T shirt buyers!

wecantconsenttothis.teemill.com/collection/shop-all/

FannyCann I am v pleased - they can send us the pic via social media channels as we love seeing them and also need some official models [unpaid].

The good(?) outcome here is that in this letter, the CPS have confirmed for us that the current law does not work.

And Harriet Harman has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to demand he intervene in this woman's case - sharing her story will absolutely have made a difference to other women, and I hope that she gets the outcome she needs.

hugely agree CPS approach to stats is focusing on the WRONG metrics - high successful prosecution rate is no use to anyone if you only prosecute a tiny number of reported cases.

If I was a young woman today, I would seriously consider lodging a sworn, witnessed statement with a solicitor "to be opened in the event of my death" saying "I only like consensual, loving sex. I do not like rough sex. If my body is found in circumstances which suggest I have been killed during or shortly after sex, be aware that I would never have consented to this."

Fucking hell

Well there we go

We all knew it

Rape and murder of women and girls is essentially legal

'i thought she wanted it m'lord'

Ok off you go son.

Not that it ever gets to court if this is cos stance.

Doesn't suprise me in the slightest after the experience i had with CPS over some very serious allegations regarding STBXH the police had concrete evidence and knew he was guilty as sin yet soon as they handed over to CPS they came back with those exact same words I'm still pursuing it to this day because while men like my ex are on the streets women are not safe and if anything the CPS have just stroked his ego into thinking he can get away with it again if not worse!

I was unable to get the police to take action against my abusive husband "because you haven't reported it three times" so being raped once doesn't warrant any action, I had to wait and endure two more rapes which I apparently consented to. I appear to have also consented to the subsequent abuse for having reported him.

That's awful anxiousannies
The odds are continually stacked against women.

PM just said in PMQs that the rough sex murder defence was 'indefensible.'

Maybe Cruella the AG could get up off her arse and do something about it?

court decisions since have diluted its effect

Please cite some court cases showing this actually happens - from BAILII not the Daily Mail, so that we can all read the court's decisions and the reason given.

PM just said in PMQs that the rough sex murder defence was 'indefensible.'

Is it anything to worry about that the current Prime Minister is so uninformed that he thinks (if indeed, he has even given it any real thought it all - thinking isn't really his forte) that there is such a thing as a 'rough sex murder' defense merely because the press and a number of back-bench MPs have concocted it up in their heads ? Surely the government has legal advisors that are up on this very basic aspect of criminal law ?

Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

You'd best write him a letter to explain, sawdustformypony

Probably shouldn’t be posting this but please see the cropped line from my letter from the police telling me why they weren’t passing my case to the CPS (There was more and worse but too outing) . After the man I barely knew put me in the hospital and decided I was really into being branded and strangled.

Due to a right to review supported by an amazing charity this is now with the CPS (2 years and fucking counting later) but from reading shit like that my confidence they will ever re-attest that man is slim to zero.

Until the next one dies.

Oh and I’m not into BDSM.

Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

Yes - it's all concocted. What I'm getting at - exactly - is that there is no such defense as a "rough sex " defense. There IS a defense in these cases - the defendant's defense is that they had no intent to kill [or cause GBH] - intent being one of the cornerstones for a murder conviction. Sometimes the juries are persuaded on the evidence that it wasn't murder and on other times they are not.

What surprises me a little is the extent to which MPs are so gullible. The press ? meh.

CPS are a pile of shit. I was assaulted in my home, a neighbour heard me and after I reported and the police did door to door, she told them what she heard.
The person who assaulted me claimed self defence, although this was a lie and no injuries yet I had photos of my injuries
CPS said his word against mine and no further action.

Absolute waste of space.

This is utterly sickening and disgusting and almost unbearable -- that men could get away with this by citing "consent".

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?' ..... 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.

FFS, this drives me insane, why is the victim's sexual history taken into account but not the accused?

'Are the men who have got away with murder/ been given very light penalties for the brutal murder of women, concocted?

What exactly are you getting at?

Yes - it's all concocted'

I see.

Qsandmore I remember your awful experience.

The BDSM "community". Fuck off. If you kill someone in your sex game, you should be liable. The partner on the receiving end is taking a risk, that of being killed, the sadistic partner should consider that they are taking a risk too.

There IS a defense in these cases - the defendant's defense is that they had no intent to kill [or cause GBH] - intent being one of the cornerstones for a murder conviction.

If rough sex is used as the reason the man was carrying out the act of strangulation or whatever then it can indeed be termed "the rough sex defence". No one said it appears in legal textbooks stop splitting hairs.

In PMQs today BJ said that the government is looking to end this as a defence (it was a direct question asked).