'Rough sex' defence will be banned, says justice minister

[SerenityNowwwww]

“The so-called "rough sex gone wrong" defence will be outlawed in new domestic abuse legislation a justice minister has told MPs.”

BBC:
apple.news/A5yi6jTq4Qpynq5zo3TunNw

The only men who get killed as part of sex "games" are murdered by other men.

@datun excuse gallows humour but seeing as we do most of the world's unpaid labour, perhaps a 'rough food defence'? "He INSISTED on eating his chicken raw. He LOVED rotten eggs and seafood left at room temperature for weeks on end." "Yes, he was a right dirty bastard. It wasn't her fault."

Apologies. It's a coping mechanism.

thank you, Fiona - and also @MNHQ.

AnyFucker

The only men who get killed as part of sex "games" are murdered by other men.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Truth right there.

Fiona

Thank you

Fiona

RuffleCrow

IKR? Where does it end?

Thank you so much, Fiona.

Some good news at last.

Finally!

Progress

Domestic Abuse Bill: MPs back ban on 'chilling rough sex defence' - BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53311652

Thank you to Fiona, Harriet Wistrich and all the women who have worked on this

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade. I came across this interesting analysis which explains the issue more accurately and seems to indicate that nothing has actually changed.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1278411380836708353?s=20

oh jesus christ that Twitter thread is making my skin crawl:

People should have more awareness of rough sex through education and campaign to prevent the tragic consequences of rough sex from the first place.

There are so many incredibly terrifying and creepy men who have opinions on this issue. I don't know if The Secret Barrister is one of them but I am suspicious. Maybe it is just a PR move from the government that doesn't change anything but I would like to see a legal analysis from a trusted source.

Great news!

Maybe it is just a PR move from the government that doesn't change anything but I would like to see a legal analysis from a trusted source.

Yup, it would be good to see more legal and accurate analysis on this issue from various sources.

So it seems as if the common law principle exemplified in R v Brown is being put into statute but only in respect of injuries caused by sexual activity. This is the clause moved by the Govt at report stage.

Secretary Priti Patel Secretary Robert Buckland
To move the following Clause—
“Consent to serious harm for sexual gratification not a defence
NC20
(1) This section applies for the purposes of determining whether a person (“D”) who inflicts serious harm on another person (“V”) is guilty of a relevant offence.
(2) It is not a defence that V consented to the infliction of the serious harm for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification (but see subsection (4)).
(3) In this section—
“relevant offence” means an offence under section 18, 20 or 47 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (“the 1861 Act”); “serious harm” means—
(a) grievous bodily harm, within the meaning of section 18 of the 1861 Act,
(b) wounding, within the meaning of that section, or
(c) actual bodily harm, within the meaning of section 47 of the 1861
Act.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of an offence under section 20 or 47 of the 1861 Act where—
(a) the serious harm consists of, or is a result of, the infection of V with a sexually transmitted infection in the course of sexual activity, and
(b) V consented to the sexual activity in the knowledge or belief that D had the sexually transmitted infection.
(5) For the purposes of this section it does not matter whether the harm was inflicted for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification for D, V or some other person.
(6) Nothing in this section affects any enactment or rule of law relating to other circumstances in which a person’s consent to the infliction of serious harm may, or may not, be a defence to a relevant offence.”

Consideration of Bill (Report Stage): 6 July 2020 9 Domestic Abuse Bill, continued
Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause legislates for the principle (established in the case of R. v. Brown [1993] 2 W.L.R. 556) that, for the purposes of determining whether someone is guilty of an offence under section 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a person may not consent to the infliction of serious harm for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. The clause also reflects the exception for cases involving the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, established by the cases of R. v. Dica ([2004] 3 All ER 593) and R. v. Konzani ([2005] EWCA Crim 706).

Interesting to see how the ‘intent’ part of the person’s actions you need to prove for a murder charge interplay with this. Ideally if you engage in risky sexual behaviour and it was reasonably foreseeable that one of the consequences of those actions could be death or serious injury then that should be murder whatever your intentions.

I heard Harriet Harman talking about this on radio 4 last night, they were discussing this change. Some of the things she was saying, though she didn't say her name, very clearly related to the awful death of Natalie Connolly. She had clearly been very affected by her death.

I am so glad that her awful death, and the travesty of the trial afterwards, has been properly noticed. Hopefully, this may lead to some real justice, retrospectively, for the women who suffered these deaths. I'm certainly up for a campaign to apply this retrospectively, and will email my MP suggesting that this is done.

The law hasn't changed an iota. Those behind the 'We cannot consent to that' campaign have worked very hard and in itself, that's very commendable - but it beggars belief that they did not know the existing law. They also don't even seem to appreciate that although consent is not a defense, it can still be raised in mitigation when it comes to sentencing.

Ideally if you engage in risky sexual behaviour and it was reasonably foreseeable that one of the consequences of those actions could be death or serious injury then that should be murder whatever your intentions.

Phrases such as 'foreseeable, recklessness, carelessness and intent' and their different meanings have been argued over in court cases for years. At the moment the difference between killings for manslaughter and murder is the question of the 'intent'. If you wanted to change that - that's what the campaign should have been about - but it seems someone got too excited about the word 'consent' and victim blaming.

This is obviously a difficult and controversial topic but the points made by the Secret Barrister seem to make an awful lot of sense to me.

The fact is that there was not and never has been any such thing as the "rough sex" defence. That is to say that it has never been a defence to murder for a man (or a woman) to be able to say regarding the victim "he/she consented" as the pp has noted. The issue of consent is however relevant to the question of intention ie whether the alleged perpetrator intended to murder the victim. The Government amendment will not change that position. It therefore follows that a murder trial in these kind of circumstances will still involve an inquiry into whether or not the victim consented to "rough sex".

The concept of intention is at the core of the offence of murder and the difference between murder and manslaughter. As the Secret Barrister notes, anyone who argued as a defence to murder that they did it intend to kill the victim because he/she consented to rough sex would almost certainly be convicted of manslaughter.

I for one would be interested in understanding the WCCTT reaction to what the Secret Barrister is saying. But it is certainly correct to say that this amendment has not changed the law at all.

Oh. Shit. Sounded really good.
We Can’t Consent to This has been a massive success in raising public awareness, anti-normalisation, and that in itself will help some women.
They did an absolutely amazing campaign and got the ear of so many influential people in this issue which will have been very valuable.
I am not sure what there is to ask for, now, legally?