Raped and now my case has been NFA'ed

[NotAScoobyDoo2]

At the beginning of the year I was raped by my ex-boyfriend. I reported him to the police and they investigated it. I had the news last week that it wouldn't be going to the CPS because although they think the case was strong there were messages I sent saying that I wanted to have sex with him which apparently undermines my case. They said that any jury would assume that he would have the reasonable belief I consented.

To put the matter into context he forced me to have oral sex with him and whilst doing it pushed my head so far down into his groin that I couldn't breathe. I felt like I was fighting for my life and was terrified.

I've spent months in therapy and have had a diagnosis of Acute Traumatic Stress Disorder (apparently they can't give a diagnosis of PTSD for symptoms that exist for less than a year).

I'm applying for a review of the evidence but it feels like I'm fighting against a system which is rigged against me. If I have to, I'll make a complaint the Police about the way this has been handled and I'll take it as high as I can.

I know I'm preaching to the converted. How can I make other people listen?

The issue is that these men go on forever doing it and are never brought to justice. I'm sure he's been accused before. After we broke up there were a lot of small things he said that came to mind and as "oh yes, this makes sense now".

The police need to be able to say okay we now have x number of allegations from x number of independent complainants that these allegations can now stand independently as evidence regardless of extenuating factors such as sexting / circumstances etc.

Yea absolutely notascooby

Hello a MN poster felt like you and was supported by the Centre for Women's Justice through several reviews, to trial, then retrial where her attacker was finally sentenced. I would reach out to them.

I fully agree with this suggestion so sorry @NotAScoobyDoo2

The law requires, that for someone to be found guilty this must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This is a fair system, but does mean occasionally a guilty person will go free, but should prevent the conviction of the innocent, and by in large it works.

Unfortunately in your case I assume that the CPS have decided that the messages insert a reasonable doubt sufficient to either prevent conviction or result in a successful appeal.

That is not to say your ordeal didn't happen, but how can you, or the crown for you, prove to a jury that it did when there is evidence that points to consent - its a bad situation for you, and I feel for you, but its not a toxic system, its the law working as it should.

occasionally a guilty person will go free.

It's not "occasionally" that men walk free after rape. It's the norm. It IS a toxic system in this situation for women where their every move is scrutinized so much that even with video evidence blokes have walked free. It is the women who are on trial in these cases.

The law is on the side of rich men. Makes sense having been written by rich men.

I disagree.

1 guilty man goes free and goes on to further ruin the lives of 10 more women and he's never brought to justice. That's the same as sending 10 innocent women to prison for life with no parole.

The police believe my version of events - it all comes down to how they think a jury would see it. When you compare rape cases to any other crime you can see there's a problem 1% versus 64% in muggings. Aggravated burglary 50%.

Can I prove beyond reasonable doubt? I'm waiting for an endoscopy which I believe will show damage to my vocal cords. My consultant I'm under at the hospital thinks the stress from the attack has caused a flare-up of Crohn's. I have ATS and have been taking medication since the attack for sleep disorder and undergoing EMDR therapy.

If this doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that his actions were violent and non-consensual then I don't know what does. If I had died during the attack, the rhetoric would be different and none of the text messages would matter and he would be going to prison.

Additionally, if anyone feels discomfort over things of a sexual nature it's not my issue. If a member of the jury is uncomfortable dealing with the facts of a sexual nature then they should exclude themselves. Everyone has an opinion but the only opinion that's ever truly valid is the one that's based on experience and evidence not a notion that was pulled out of someone's head over 2000 years ago.

The same happened to DS1's gf. She is tiny and the rapist was huge, about 6' 3". He dragged her into a filthy men's loo and during the assault he told her there was no point in reporting him as he'd got away with raping another girl before.

The police were sure she had a case. I accompanied her to the rape suite and the officers told me it was definitely a case but the CPS dropped it. Enraged me. Just looking at the rapist in the dock compared to this tiny, fragile woman would have made it clear how easy it would be to drag her anywhere.

That's ridiculous and horrific. Just why would they drop it? It's truly awful.

Unfortunately none of the medical diagnosis you mention proves anything - all could have alternative causes - they don't prove your version of events.

However there are text messages indicating you wanted sex, which of course, you must see undermines your case.

As I said before, I believe you, but if I was sitting on a jury, if I was doing what a jury is obliged to do - to look at the concept of reasonable doubt, then I can see here that could well exist, and a not guilty verdict may be the only lawful one, and therefore see why the CPS don't want to pursue it to trial.

So sorry this happened to you OP.
You're right though, the system IS stacked against you.

Acute traumatic stress is a recognised psychological injury caused by a single traumatic event. Damage to vocal cords proves force. I don't understand what's happened that would make you think me effectively causing this injury to myself would be consensual in any shape or form.

YourAzureEagle - what you have said actually shows a fundamental lack of understanding of anything medical and psychological. If you really feel that you can't understand medical diagnosis then maybe you should be excluded from sitting on a jury.

Firstly I'd like to thank you for taking this as far as you have. As a fellow rape victim I know how hard that must have been and agree that more of us need to speak up about what happens to women.

For myself I found the police saying they won't be taking it further as traumatic as the rape. Ex (father of my child) used that as proof I was a Bast bitter ex and he was innocent to bad mouth me to anyone and everyone. It's too soon perhaps for you but I found what helped me heal most was acknowledging how crap the system is and how misogynistic the world is and knowing that I did nothing wrong. I realised by holding onto the injustice and pian I perpetuated my suffering while he's living his life no shits given.

I believe you. Many women here are saying they believe you. What happened is wrong. You have done more than many of us have the strength to do in the fight for justice, you have done that for other women and it's appreciated. It's not your job to put yourself through more stress for others, dropping it and focusing on your own healing is the right thing to do. Don't let him ruin your whole life or years if it. You can't change that there is no justice you can only put yourself a woman first and heal.

Be assured this will show up on a Claire's law submission if any future partner does that. My ex had never been convicted of his past crimes and I was ignorant but in fighting him in court for the child his police check came back with multiple arrests he'd never been convicted of for violence and harassment of women court didn't seem to think this was justification for limiting his contact with the kid but if I'd have had the wherewithal to Claire's law the fucker I'd have seen the history. Now I know to Claire's law and if he tells future partners he's got a court order to see his kids because I'm a nut case I hope more people know of Claire's law and would check his story that way.

I'm sorry you have had his happen and I'm sorry our legal system has let him get away with it.

please be aware that it is the CPS that have nfa’d your case, not the police.

it is them you need to be complaining to if your complaint is about the NFA.

police are just as frustrated when they put a lot of work into a case, and have a good enough case to take to the CPS, then it gets knocked because CPS don’t think it’s a guaranteed guilty verdict.

I'm glad acknowledging the system is crap has helped you. Everyone is different. For me, I need to know that I've stood up for myself as much as I can. There's not a one size fits all and this is what I feel I need to do.

I find it remarkable you feel able to say that, on this thread.

The system demonstrably isn’t fair. Men get away with rape and sexual assault many times more often than they are convicted for it.

How can you suggest it is fair? It’s a system, yes. But it’s inadequate for prosecuting sexual abuse. Rape is effectively decriminalised.

On this thread people are saying OP would be safer if she gave up. That is repeated everywhere. And you think it’s fair?

Thank you. Summed up in a perfect nutshell. If I don't challenge the system I'll feel like I'm endorsing it.

They are, but they are also influenced by how reluctant Juries are to confict men.

Does anyone remember a documentary a few years ago know about 3 different rape cases, how they were dealt with, and those that went to trial.

One case was so obviously rape, and both police and CPS confident they would get a conviction.

But the Jury said not guilty.

And there is quite a lot of evidence that it is women on the jury who swing it this was. Something about thinking if that was my son, my brother, my husband wouldn't want them to be shamed!

" ... the jury conviction rate on rape charges was in the region of 52–55% annually, and that since 2018 it rose considerably. Over the 15-year period the jury conviction rate in rape cases was 58% on average ... "

3% increase doesn't seem to warrant the word considerably.

and

In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult.

At present, charge rates for rape vary wildly between regions, from 1.3% in Surrey to 8.2% in Durham. Cases take, on average, 817 days to reach court, and 63% of cases are closed because the victim has given up on the process and withdrawn from it.

The last paragraph really got me. If someone accused either of my sons of rape I would be mortified. However, even before it happened to me, I like to think I would be fair.

I've been on jury service myself and it's difficult not to let emotions get in the way but the obligation is to look at the facts and not make fantastical notions of how it might not have happened or look at what I want to describe as the "unreasonable doubt".

If a woman comes complete with GP records, a witness and therapy notes that date back to the incident it's highly unlikely she's making it up - for me that meets the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. No woman goes through months of therapy, attends her GP and has witnesses for something that didn't happen.

A man standing at the front with his dick pics saying "she consented because I sent her this and she didn't complain" or "we did some sexting the week before" is what I describe as an unreasonable doubt. Even if there's a couple of weeks of sexting, as part of the relationship, it shouldn't make a difference. The barrister is ONLY meant to ask questions about the rape / assault.

However there are text messages indicating you wanted sex, which of course, you must see undermines your case.

This is exactly the biased thinking of juries which is why the CPS more often than not does not take cases to trial. Because the know members of the public, say daft things like this.

Agreeing to have sex doesn't mean agreeing to be assualted or forced to perform an act you haven't consented to.

It is because of this type of bigoted thinking that there have been suggestions that juries at rape trails should undergo training on what legally rape means. One of which would be to say this really reactionary statement should not be part of legally assessing someone's guilt.

The other suggestion was juryless trials so that the facts could be assessed as opposed to trial by brainwashed sexist anti woman sentiments.

The police need to be able to say okay we now have x number of allegations from x number of independent complainants that these allegations can now stand independently as evidence regardless of extenuating factors such as sexting / circumstances etc.

This is one of the purposes of SARCs. Not only to give women the opportunity to get specialised medical help, but also for forensic evidence to be collected. Without the police being involved.

So even if the woman choses not to report, evidence from her rape can be collated with information from other women attacked. ie giving the opportunity to identify a serial rapist.

However, I think most women are unaware of SARCs and for all I know since they were handed over to the NHS may well have face cuts.

A Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) can offer confidential medical and practical support to people who have recently been raped or sexually assaulted. SARCs are usually provided by the NHS. SARCs are not Rape Crisis member services but often work alongside us.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/sexual-assault-referral-centres-sarcs/

OP I have total respect for your determination to exhaust all options to find justice. Just echoing that I hope you have ISVA support. Wishing you all the best with your VRR. I'm so sorry the bastard did this to you.

OP I admire your pursuit of justice.

However, I am sorry to tell you that the CPS are correct re what a jury would do. It's absolutely abhorrent - I have found this out through being on a jury in a case like this. I am sure that the rapist who was the defendant in the case I did was 100% guilty and he is on the street still. Jury couldn't reach a verdict. You only need a little bit of doubt in the mind of a juror and/or a juror who simply just doesn't believe that the women got raped as he's a complete misogynist and/or a juror who is too stupid to understand the oath they took and refuses to have it explained to them or one taking the non-judgmental (probably wrong word) stance of not finding anyone guilty of anything so that their own conscience is "clean". And the fucking nonsense the defence come out with is shameful. Perhaps the woman made a mistake (wtf), perhaps the woman is crying rape because she doesn't want her husband to think she was deliberately "cheating" with the rapist (wtf), perhaps the victim is mentally unstable due to taking ADs (wtf), perhaps the victim wanted it (wtf), perhaps the victim is lying (wtf)...I actually don't know how the defence barrister could sleep at night. Apparently the weasel was facilitating a "fair trial". Don't really understand who it was fair to.

I don't know what the answer is. But the justice system is not it.