Woman jailed for sexual assault on man….

[SuperSleepyBaby]

Anyone else find this BBC article unclear?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64919747.amp

The judge noted that “…neither he, nor the prosecution, could find any similar case anywhere in the UK.”

"Factually this case involved a woman having sex with a man without his consent and there should be parity between male victims of sexual crime and female victims," the prosecution solicitor said.”

Factually…….?

That’s a mischaracterisation. It’s
good that this man, who has clearly been left with long term harms, has gotten justice.

We’d just like the same standards applied in similar cases (going home with someone but not consenting to sex) when the victim is the woman

The comments from the judge are strange in that this is technically a different charge to rape (which has a precise legal meaning) but in E&W it has the same maximum penalty as rape (life) and the judge has said to his mind this is akin to rape but the perpetrator has been given a minimal prison sentence?

Perhaps the NI law is different and maximum sentencing is less but if the judge sees this as akin to rape why didn’t he give a longer sentence? Or is it normal for him to sentence rapists to just 2 years in prison?

Ordering 41-year-old Lord to serve two years in jail and two under supervised licence conditions, Judge Patrick Lynch KC said neither he nor counsel could find any similar case anywhere in the UK.

Tanya seems.very manliness in the photo.

I’ve answered my own question.

Screenshots of the first three (other) cases that came up by googling the judges name plus ‘rape’

2 men abducted a 12 year old and a 15 year old, sexually assaulted both girls and raped the 12 year old and this judge gave one man 9 years the other and 6 and a half years (because he pled guilty).

www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/07/two-men-jailed-for-abducting-and-raping-girl-12/

two counts of raping a child under 13,
two counts of sexually assaulting a child under 13
two counts of child abduction.

9 years. 6 and a half years.

Both men had previous convictions.

The other 2 cases both involve teenage perpetrators with victims 4-5 years their junior (one female victim, one
male victim). Both got 3 years probation.

Some
Women
are
masculine.

Doesn’t mean they are men tho.

@Codlingmoths

1. Women commit sexual assault far, far less frequently than men
2. News outlets describe male perpetrators as women if the perps claim to be women
3. Males who claim to be women often claim to be lesbians.
4. The judge referred to the crime as "rape" in his comments. Rape in NI is an offence of penetration with a penis.

So the reader would be primed to expect the story to be about a man and Tanya Lord looks very masculine in those photos.

Cannot get the hang of this formatting malarkey.

True but there are now more men who believe they are women than there are women who truly look like men.

It got to court because they had a strong case, Lord denied any sexual contact whatsoever rather than arguing it was consensual (as most male rapists do). The rape kit recovered her vaginal fluid and full DNA profile from his penis and testicular area which she couldn’t explain so they had empirical evidence that she was highly likely to be lying.

If she had said it was consensual however it would have been a case of he said / she said like with most female rape cases (regarding consent) and it probably wouldn’t have made it to court.

This !

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. I can stop being so angry!

(Well I'll stay angry about rape/sexual assault and the criminal justice system in general)

Sorry haven't had time to read all comments, but I saw this last night and though too late to post.

But very much wanted there to be a headline or title that specifically reference the use of the word rape.

That is the point of this decision. Nothing to do with sexual assault but they have convicted a women of rape.

I thought I was going to read that in fact the women was a trans woman who had not undergone surgery.

The issue is that rape as a crime can only be carried out by a man, ie someone with penis.

How was the court able to disregard the law.

So now because some dozy judge didn't do his job properly the one crime that is clearly an act of aggression by a male person has now been (wrongly) turned into, as the OP implied "sexual assault".

I hope they appeal this, not because the woman concerned shouldn't be judged,but so that the law is properly applied.

I almost wish the title to this could be changed. Seems hard to say this is about women's rights being undermined again, but I cant understand how this was allowed to happen.

NB definetion of rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

That is the point of this decision. Nothing to do with sexual assault but they have convicted a women of rape.
No they haven't - because in law rape is the perpetrator penetrating the victim with a penis.

Posted too soon. From the reports the actual charge seems to be sexual assault.

It’s not a rape conviction. It’s a separate charge with the same max sentence.

“Causing sexual activity without
consent (penetrative) (section4(4))
(indictable - max life)”

(the above is the precise wording of the equivalent charge in E&W and this woman has been convicted of the NI versiom, which may be worded slightly differently)

Having been, I suppose, “sexually assaulted” by women on a few occasions in my younger days, I can’t see how it’s close to being equivalent to male violence against women, and tbh I can’t think of any man I know who wouldn’t say the same.

It would of course be very different if the male victim were a child or developmentally impaired, or otherwise vulnerable (outside of being intoxicated) or if the perpetrator were a man.

But yeah, mostly worrying that one needs to clarify that the “woman” in this case is actually a woman.

IwantToRetire · Yesterday 17:47

That is the point of this decision. Nothing to do with sexual assault but they have convicted a women of rape.

No, she was charged with and convicted of sexual assault. The judge said "it is akin to rape," in his summing up comments.

All in all, it's a highly unusual and pretty bizarre case.

It’s just as well newspapers can’t be arsed to give as much column space to stories about women being sexually assaulted and raped by men. There wouldn’t be a tree left standing on the entire planet.

Few papers do any court reporting at all.

Do you think the picture is of the victim in error? It could be a terrible photo, but the image seems to show chin stubble?

This is exactly what struck me too.When a woman gets drunk and goes home willingly with a man who then rapes her, with no injuries or witnesses, her chance of seeing him convicted are minimal. Even though a woman has much less chance of fighting off a man, and is also at risk of pregnancy.Worse all round.

Sadly, I don’t see any chance of this case improving outcomes for most rape victims, ie women.

It’s not actually so much he was automatically believed, I understand the defendant admitted the facts of the defence so it seems reading between the lines she gave a pretty full account of what happened when first questioned. Plus he knew the woman and knew her as a lesbian. It doesn’t actually say if the victim himself is gay or straight. The defence attempted to have the matter tried by a preliminary enquiry which is very unusual and the judge didn’t allow it. This woman is vulnerable and there are mental health issues at play.

It is a picture of the woman. She is a natal female and a lesbian.

SD1978 · 11/03/2023 03:53
I'm mainly impressed that the first case prosecuted is successful because he was automatically believed, unlike the huge number of women that don't report because you went home with him, what did you think would happen mentality.....hope this improves outcomes for women too since such a hard line was taken.

I thought this too. He was actually believed without any ‘he said she said’ you can’t prove it argument. I wonder if maybe the woman admitted it.

I am glad he was believed though.