Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

88 replies

Lamahaha · 31/05/2020 08:09

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.

OP posts:
sawdustformypony · 03/06/2020 17:28

No one said it appears in legal textbooks - and there reason for that - because it doesn't exist. You can call distinguishing between fact and fiction, 'splitting hairs' should you want to - as long as you know the difference and want others to know the difference too.

sawdustformypony · 03/06/2020 17:32

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

Shows the contempt that BJ has for PMQs - blah, blah, blah - next question - blah, blah, blah.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/06/2020 17:41

It does exist. You can refuse it to call it that. Whatever. But it still has happened that multiple men, such as Graham Coutts, have attempted to use the defence that they killed their consenting sex partner by accident while indulging in a dangerous sex game.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 17:43

They never seem to get charged with manslaughter either though. Which can be a life term.

So not sure why only gbh has been flagged.

sawdustformypony · 03/06/2020 17:55

They never seem to get charged with manslaughter either though. Which can be a life term.

So not sure why only gbh has been flagged.

Because if you intend to commit GHB ie the section 18 offence (as opposed to the S20 offence) AND the victim dies as a result then that is murder.

You can't intend to commit manslaughter - obvs.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 18:01

So in the case of death during 'sex gone wrong' both a murder charge AND a manslaughter charge cannot be used.

Is what you seem to have said.

You are quibbling while women are dying, I assume you understand that.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/06/2020 18:04

I'm quite sure he does understand that.

sawdustformypony · 03/06/2020 18:51

So in the case of death during 'sex gone wrong' both a murder charge AND a manslaughter charge cannot be used.

They can* be used in the alternative - but one can not be guilty of the both for the same crime - one is killing (or causing GBH) with intent and the other is killing without such an intent.

    • although as I understand it, a jury - if so directed by the Judge that it can do so - can find a defendant that is only charged with murder, guilty of manslaughter. (the Russian doll analogy - the one inside the other)

You are quibbling while women are dying, I assume you understand that.

No I don't. Please clarify.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 19:06

'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.'

In the case of 'rough sex gone wrong' the argument is she consented to GBH and he didn't mean to kill her so not murder.

'Because if you intend to commit GHB ie the section 18 offence (as opposed to the S20 offence) AND the victim dies as a result then that is murder.'

So it can't be manslaughter as by definition what led to it (serious assault that is argued to be consensual) must be murder.

But it can't be murder as per your comment about murder.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 19:08

So what's the charge when a woman is dead, after a man eg strangles her during sex, and he says it was an accident and she consented to be strangled.

From your comments it seems there isn't one that covers her death.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 19:10

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

Manslaughter due to gross negligence seems a reasonable charge. Assuming they can get life for that.

sawdustformypony · 03/06/2020 19:25

In the type of crimes we are considering, I think the type of manslaughter that would fit the facts would be involuntary rather than through gross negligence. Involuntary manslaughter generally attract a higher sentence.

LuxLuxLux84 · 03/06/2020 19:32

There’s a petition on Change about this.

BobbieDraper · 03/06/2020 19:57

@FannyCann

Where can I get the T-shirts? I couldnt find a shop link on their website.

WomanDaresTo · 03/06/2020 20:45

Hi all - there's a good piece in the guardian tonight on our latest research:

More than 60 victims have been forced to go to court over the past decade to deny that they consented to strangulation, assaults or violence, according to the campaign to end reliance on the “rough sex” defence.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/03/rough-sex-defence-led-to-over-60-victims-having-to-deny-giving-consent-finds-research

Once you include homicides, that's 97 women in 10 years in the court system who have been killed or injured in "rough sex" claims. And just based on our research - this will only be a sample of cases.

WomanDaresTo · 03/06/2020 20:46

BobbieDraper

here!

BobbieDraper · 03/06/2020 20:49

@WomanDaresTo
Thank you!! Tote bag and Tee coming my way!

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 20:54

'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.'

'Because if you intend to commit GHB ie the section 18 offence (as opposed to the S20 offence) AND the victim dies as a result then that is murder.'

In the case that the argument is there was GBH but it was consented to as part of sex, you have explicitly stated that it must be a murder charge, and therefore cannot be a manslaughter charge.

You seem to have changed your mind?

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 21:00

Sawdust. Here's the article posted just now. Please read it and tell us if there is any part of this you do not see as 'concocted' (to invent an excuse, explanation, or story in order to deceive someone; Cambridge dictionary).

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/03/rough-sex-defence-led-to-over-60-victims-having-to-deny-giving-consent-finds-research

LexMitior · 03/06/2020 21:37

I think I would agree with the idea that in law, that strictly speaking there is not a “rough sex defence” for murder. You cannot consent to your own murder. It’s debatable if you can really consent to anything more then mild ABH.

What is happening is that an alleged taste for BDSM is enough apparently to make the CPS charge murder, because they say that alleged sexual activity is enough to be evidence that there was not intent to murder or cause GBH with intent.

There is then a lesser charge of manslaughter by gross negligence.

Both murder and manslaughter could get you a life sentence. But only murder will allow that a life sentence must be given; whereas for manslaughter, it will be very much less because the harm and culpability cannot be said to be the same, even if the woman has died. Broadhurst got three years eight months for gross negligence manslaughter for the death of Natalie Connolly. That is why we are where we are.

There is a problem with this because at least in some cases it looks like the CPS is not willing to go for a murder charge not perhaps on the basis of all the evidence but instead it is focussing on sexual activity and consent to the exclusion of other factors (prior convictions of offender etc). In other words they may actually be anticipating what is said by defence counsel and also assuming that on the use of “consent” means that it is not worth bothering doing. There are lawyers who say that consent to matters like GBH is possible. In boxing yes. But in the context of sexual relationship then as a matter of public policy it should be made clear via the Harman amendment that you may not consent to that and it is not lawful. On one account this is what the law says already, but it is case law and not in statute.

HH’s amendment throws up lots of other legal issues; what perhaps is really the problem is that institutionally, people are really too ready to believe that all BDSM is consensual and lawful. Some of these cases are very problematic - people who strangle each other for example where there is an overlap with domestic violence because strangulation is a common way of killing women.

I am uneasy as to the “consent” but I did not mean to kill or cause serious harm in cases of death. There is no one there to dismiss what is a self serving account (true perhaps for all defendants) but on the grounds of public policy it needs to be clearer why Brown applies and how.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 21:49

'Campaigners argue that the defence should not have been open to any defendant since 1993 when a test case, R v Brown, in the House of Lords resulted in the conviction of a group of men for assault and wounding even though their sadomasochistic victims willingly participated in the violence.'

For anyone not sure this is the brown case ^^.

A legal precedent (if that's the right term) that a person cannot consent to acts like wounding or assault.

There was also the recent case about the body modification artist who went to prison, he had written consent from the people he carried out modifications on

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/tattooist-dr-evil-jailed-for-performing-ear-and-nipple-removals

A lot of women found that judgement really interesting in the light of the cases talked about in the previous guardian article posted.

TehBewilderness · 03/06/2020 21:49

Men's murder of women is now handled by prosecutors the same way they handle rape. They do not prosecute because it is a he said/she said situation, except she can't say because she is dead.

ShinyFootball · 03/06/2020 21:52

Any advances women make seem to be turned on us.

In the 90s,00s maybe (can't remember) consent became a big deal. Women seemed to have made gains around sex crimes around it.

In the longer term men, especially younger men, have ingested the idea that as long as you get a yes you can do whatever you like pretty much. And if course it's being used against us in court. But she said yes? To GBH? Yes she wanted it. And brown seems to go by the wayside.

LexMitior · 03/06/2020 22:14

I had a discussion with another poster on here that Brown was an irrelevance because it was homophobic and that in practice for heterosexuals then it barely applied. Well it has but rarely. And not to the same degree of harm.

The body modification case (MB) was an interesting example where the law was applied and strictly as a matter of public policy. In the end that is why you cannot consent to serious assault - the potential for abuse is huge if that was allowed to develop further.

I think this HH amendment is backed by the Prime Minister. That would mean it will go forward to be part of the DA Bill. It will be very interesting to see what results (however imperfect).

101521a · 03/06/2020 22:18

This was so maddening to read but also not surprising at all. I reported a man to the police when I was 22 (he offered me a lift home on a first date and drove me out of London and wouldn't let me out of his car - you can guess what happened next). The police didn't even put the case to CPS as he said it was consensual rough sex (the police had pictures of bruising, evidence it was unprotected, anal on top of everything else). And yes the customary 'what were you wearing', 'the investigation has been punishment enough for him' comments by the police on top of them calling my male friends to ask about my sex life. This was only 5 years ago.

Bruising around my neck from him grabbing it, bruising everywhere else... but totally consensual. Sure. Yeah that makes sense. Angry

Swipe left for the next trending thread