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?

I'm so sorry this happened to you.

For me, even if you sent texts expressing a desire to have sex, consent can be withdrawn at any point.

The second that is ignored it becomes non consensual and so rape.

The injuries and resulting trauma would also be indicative of this.

I'm in no way a lawyer but that's the key point that underpins the situation.

The text wasn't a binding contract. If that's the case then rape in relationships is essentially statutory.

Thank you for this. And for everyone else who has supported me.

If you think I'm in the wrong, I hope you've learnt something. If you haven't learnt anything I will only prey that it never happens to you because this is when you'll realise how wrong you are.

IANAL but a close friend was on the jury for a case where there were texts like these.

The guy was still found guilty and went down, thankfully.

Sorry to hear what you went through/ are still going through OP. If you have the energy to ask for a review, why not do it? Just steel yourself that it might still be considered insufficient evidence.

Very disappointing news OP.

I hope at least the process thus far has been unpleasant enough for him that it might serve as some kind of deterrent. If you think he's the sort of person who won't like it, perhaps a review could cause him further stress and suffering, so would be worth prolonging the amount of time it's hanging over him. Not worth it if he won't care though.

The crumbs we're reduced to, eh?

That's outrageous. So sexting means that any time within next few days (or how long?) person can demand violent sex to the point of rape because at one day you send some messages? And you don't have case? That is ridiculous.

It's just awful that this has happened to you but being a 'fair' system means that it has to be proven and your texts are reasonable doubt for his case.
I doubt there is anyone here that doubts your story. Im so sorry

Apparently that's the case. I've started drafting my review and I'm relying on the law which states that you can't consent to serious harm for sexual gratification. The facts of the case on which the law arose were quite similar to mine so it's worth it.

I feel even if I don't succeed, if the process is easier for at least one other person as a result of my action, it will be worth it.

It's insulting, and I'm glad you feel able to pursue it.

Extreme acts should require extreme proof of consent - the assumption should be that no woman would consent to being suffocated by having her head held down on a penis that is choking her, and it's not reasonable to assume that consent surely.

Hi OP

This want be of an help to your individual case, but maybe you want to contribute to this survey of victims experience of crime.

It isn't specifically about women's experience of reporting sexual violence or rape, but if you (and others on this thread) feed in your experience it might help a bit to get information made more public about the terrible treatment by thee "justice" system.

Intro https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/victims-commissioner-launches-2024-victim-survey/

Survey https://eu.research.net/r/OVC24

I know people who work in the CPS. Believe me, they get the issues and they want it to be better.

But they'll also have taken cases to trial where they see the attacker walk and the victim has been retraumatised.

I’m so sorry @NotAScoobyDoo2. It’s not going to help you, and it’s way too late to help me (39 years ago) but in Australia they are changing the consent laws so that women will no longer have to prove that they said “No” in a rape or SA trial - Men are going to have to prove instead that they said “Yes” and didn’t change their mind afterwards.

That sounds too advanced for this country. The thing is, that now I have started the VRR process I realise that there are laws but they're just not consistently applied or at all.

Under the Domestic Abuse Act section 71(1) (2021) the defence of consent doesn't apply in cases where serious harm has been caused for sexual gratification.

The threshold for this is Actual Bodily Harm the definition of this is that the harm must be more than transient. It includes cuts, bruises and psychological injury.

Within my support group I don't know any woman who was told she could rely on this legislation and why it's not being used. I'm also planning to rely on case law where the facts are almost identical to mine. If I fail I'll probably ask for a meeting to discuss this with some higher up. It's just bizarre that we have a law which was set up off the back of someone's murder and no-one relies on it.

I would assume that being higher up they would be able to have a say in some of this. Why are they never asked or consulted? It's weird.

I would assume that being higher up they would be able to have a say in some of this. Why are they never asked or consulted? It's weird.

Because the problem is the Juries.

Rape Crisis and many other groups have been trying for years to raise awareness, and on one level have got (some) police and the CPS to recognise their male focused approach of the past harmed and let down women.

But they can do nothing about juries.

ie this is about the great British public and their attitudes.

And as said upthread, even when a jury thinks a man is probably guilty they care more about the impact on his career / reputation than they do about women being believed, and make sure the guilty man is punished.

As I mentioned up thread, there was a campaign to get rape trials to be jury less, but when Scotland tried to do this is got rejected.

Another suggestion was to mak juries who were going to be part of a rape trial, under go training / awareness.

So often when cases are not put forward for trial it is because both the police and the CPS know that the evidence in a case is the type of evidence a jury will not convict on.

It would almost be better, if this is what they are doing, that they make a public statement that they think there is a case, but based on actual trials they think a jury wont convict.

Instead, because in terms of them being monitored they want their stats to look good, so they only put forward "open and shut" cases ie meaning cases that an anti woman sexist jury will convict on.

Kindly- who would have told you about the Act when you've said you don't have an ISVA? As the victim in a Police investigation there's no reason they'd talk to you about law.

I know there's been talk of the juries being specialists in the field. This makes sense. At the moment I feel attitudes towards women are getting worse.

It's not enough to say "beyond reasonable doubt" because that's what's the unreasonable doubts to creep in - like the women upthread that claimed a diagnosis of Acute Traumatic Stress isn't enough to prove he did it and it might have been caused by something else. And really what does unreasonable doubt even mean? When I did jury service we asked this question.

The judge answered can you be certain that the injuries were caused by the defendant. The jury, are not meant to ask the why, how or even to wonder as whether we might be ruining his life. Hopefully, if someone goes to prison they will get the help they need to not do it again.

I know there's been talk of the juries being specialists in the field.

RASA therapist was saying exactly this to me today. Juries are made up of average people with pre conceived ideas and pre judgements and no specific training and it's wrong that they just pull in 12 essentially random people to make such huge decisions. I think it should change.

I agree that attitudes are getting worse. Maybe it’s because there are so many more people (I was raped in the 80’s)… Maybe the internet creates communities of incels who justify their behaviour and share support and advice… I don’t know… I’m grateful phones and internet weren’t a thing when it happened to me. As for the new laws in Aus, our judges are all aged white men, so excuse me for being cynical about the likelihood of them being adhered to… Also, we had a rape in Parliament House covered up and ignored. The perpetrator was accused of multiple cases by multiple women and very well protected and he walked free with a very large government pension. I have no faith at all that we are evolved here.

Disgusting in the 21st century that we should be dealing with this but it doesn't surprise me.

I have no doubt that a large proportion of our government are at it themselves. All you have to do is look at the number of paedophiles being covered up to know it's wrong. I'm sure they have protection too.

I think my anger and mental health would be worse if I didn't complain. I'm sure women are told this bollocks in the best interests but standing up for yourself is one of the best ways of building self esteem and getting closure. It's all part of the silencing if victims. If more people complained we couldn't be ignored.

I think we need to follow Iceland’s tactics and all women stop all work - including paid work, childcare, caring for elderly, etc, cooking, cleaning, etc for 48hrs.
The planet would unravel.

What doesn't make sense to you?

@NotAScoobyDoo2 I was reading this article about the Pelicot case - her lawyer said sheer indignation drove her forward.

This is very different, but even there they were going to argue that she consented (ffs.) I can sense your indignation, and I would be the same.

If it failed I'd then be writing to anyone in the media and everyone and shouting about it from the rooftops.

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/03/gisele-pelicot-lawyer-depravity-never-seen-anything-like-it

Sending strength 💪