Emily Hunt - why was her attacker only convicted of voyeurism?

[Piccalino3]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-54027088

Am I reading this right? This woman was drugged and raped by a man she had never met after having lunch with her Father in the day. She woke up hours later in a hotel room and he had filmed her sleeping. She reported it to police, there was video of her stumbling and struggling to walk into the hotel and she had a 5 year battle to get him prosecuted for voyeurism. According to the CPS there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him for rape and initially they said that what he did was not illegal.

After years of fighting she was eventually successful at having him convicted of voyeurism and he was sentenced to a 30 month community order and a £2000. She had her life destroyed.

Am I reading this right? If so WTF! I knew things were bad for women but Jesus. I feel so angry having read this. The courage this woman has had is incredible.

Having read the BBC article about that man with the bodies into his freezer who had a long, long history of abusing children and women and having the charges against him downgraded or dismissed despite all the evidence - I can only conclude that it's because the victims of these crimes were women.

Emily has had to fight so hard - even just for a conviction of voyeurism.

I am coming to the conclusion that the police and CPS are institutionally sexist.

I sometimes have a news break for my own sanity and have young kids so tend to be a bit consumed with surviving life, therefore miss quite a bit and this is the first time I've seen this story - I'm astounded and disgusted. Yes I agree it's because she's a woman and I can't think of any other answer other than rape against women isn't considered important or a real crime. I feel so angry.

Agree the odds are completely stacked against women. That said, Emily Hunt personally and the Centre for Women’s Justice, a small charity, have been amazing to keep pursuing this at least on the voyeurism aspect. So I am happy to see that he got sentenced, even if it wasn’t custodial.

Thanks for telling us about the Centre for Women’s Justice. We need that more than ever.

The case was just on BBC news.
I don't understand why the police didn't investigate on the initial report. Am I naive?
Is this the world I am bringing my daughter into.. Its like 20 years ago.

This quote from the article - I can't believe this was the default position.

Because Emily Hunt's encounter with the man who filmed her was deemed consensual, the CPS said she had consented to being observed naked and this extended to filming.

In other words, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy when with a consensual partner.

Forget for a moment about the WTF of the police and CPS deciding she consented when she can't even remember and had never even met the man. But what the actual fuck is that?

Guys secretly filming women they have sex with has been a thing for as long as we've had cameras. I always believed unless you explicitly consented to that, it was a criminal act to film you without your knowledge and consent in such circumstances. Now I read our justice system continues to treat women as chattel - if you allow a man to have sex with you, you give away all your other rights to privacy. No wonder "She asked for it" is accepted as a viable defence where a man kills a woman during sex. If you are deemed to have consented just by allowing him to have sex with you, you obviously consented to everything else.

The patriarchal justice system in action. Set up and maintained by men, using laws written by men.

Emily Hunt was truly impressive in the BBC interview. Eloquent and utterly convincing. And I am so grateful to her that she took up this fight and that this horrendous, twisted interpretation of consent has now been accepted as wrong. I hope she can find peace in what she achieved and rebuild her life going forwards.

This is utterly shocking and distressing - and yet not surprising. The reason he couldn't be tried for rape was because the police refused to give her a medical examination. Without the medical examination there was no way to prove that she'd been forced to have sex without her consent. That meant the only thing the man could be prosecuted for was voyeurism.

But think about the implications of this: if a man drugs you to the point of unconsciousness, takes you to a hotel room and rapes you and you wake up with no knowledge of where you are, what's happened to you or why you're lying next to a strange man, the police and CPS will decide that you have consented to sex. And therefore you cannot have been raped. And therefore that drugging and raping a woman is something any man can do now without fear of prosecution.

That's how much our legal system hates women.

Its disgusting isn't it. I am getting to the point where it just makes me resigned rather than angry. How the CPS can decide the reasonable position in this case was the man had consent baffles me. She was drugged, couldn't remember the man, he had pictures of her unconscious. But yeah, its clear she consented

From what I remember there was no rape kit taken because she was deemed to out of it to consent to one. She was drugged, raped, filmed and went straight to the police for help in the actual hotel where it happened. The man had with him a rucksack that contained condoms, Viagra and what was thought to be the hallucinogenic drug LSD. He was totally sober. Police also found used condoms in the room.

if a man drugs you to the point of unconsciousness, takes you to a hotel room and rapes you and you wake up with no knowledge of where you are, what's happened to you or why you're lying next to a strange man, the police and CPS will decide that you have consented to sex. And therefore you cannot have been raped.

We have no chance.

But the mindset this reveals demonstrates clearly why time and time again women are faced with the horrific responses from the police that they receive when they try to report rape.

Rape is about power. To then have institutions like the police and CPS tell you that as far as the official position goes your rape was actually a consensual encounter - and will always be recorded and referred to as such, with absolutely nothing you can do to stop them or be heard - and to have them take away your power to even label your own rape as rape... I don't think that's compatible with recovering from such a trauma. It's a further act of violence by people with unshakeable power over you. Why should they get to define what is true?

I felt sick reading about what they have put her through and their continued willingness to defend their actions. It will never change.

She was only able to achieve this now because the CPS took a different stance in a similar case in Wales.

CWJ director Harriet Wistrich said: "We would like to know why the CPS chose to argue opposite points in two separate cases."

It’s all so inconsistent & illogical (& misogynist )

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51307676

It's horrifying. We are living in a society where rape is normalised.

Just to clear a couple of points. In the UK we don't do 'rape kits'. Victims can have access to a forensic medical assessment and examination either via the police or as a self referral. Samples can be taken in either case. Police - take the samples and will process inline with the investigation, self referral - samples stored for up to 7 years or reported to the police.
Every police area has a SARC and can easily be found via google.
If someone was too intoxicated to consent to an examination it can be done in some cases up to 7 days after the incident. If someone has prolonged lack of capacity an examination can be done on a Best Interest basis under the Mental Capacity Act.
It's worrying Emily never got the opportunity to access SARC services but hats off to her for her tenacity to challenge the hand she was being dealt by the criminal justice system.

’the police refused to carry out an internal examination on her until five days later as they said she was ‘too intoxicated’ to consent to it.’ from the Daily Mail

They judged her to be unable to consent to an exam but able to consent to sec.

@AuntyPasta

’the police refused to carry out an internal examination on her until five days later as they said she was ‘too intoxicated’ to consent to it.’ from the Daily Mail

For a vaginal rape DNA can be found up to 7 days after the incident although it is a sliding scale downwards and the sooner the better. Absence of DNA neither proves nor refutes the allegation. The police don't undertake the examination - forensic medical or nurse examiners do. The police can request for an assessment on behalf of the victim and unless someone was ill in hospital I would imagine they were highly unlikely to not be able to consent due to drugs for 5 days. There is likely much more to the reasons why she was not offered the examination sooner (not all of them will have been examples of good practice). Sadly very few people know about self referral as an option and I wish it was more publicly known about.

Because Emily Hunt's encounter with the man who filmed her was deemed consensual, the CPS said she had consented to being observed naked and this extended to filming.

Ugh this is unbelievable! Anyone who consents to sex is, by extension, also consenting to being filmed? including without their knowledge. What logic is that??

They judged her to be unable to consent to an exam but able to consent to sec.

Exactly! This is all so infuriating

They didn't judge her able to consent.

He was arrested on a charge of rape but there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction.

I think he did it.

I think everyone knows what happened.

Everyone knows she was raped

This case is absolutely horrifying. The response of the police and the CPS is in a way worse than the rape. Emily is an amazingly strong person to keep fighting this. The Center for Women’s Justice have achieved amazing things.