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 support rape and domestic abuse victims at court. I believe you OP as I have believed all the victims I have supported. I have been in court with many women in rape trials and have witnessed what they have gone through. Cross examination can be brutal. In certain circumstances the Defence can argue for access to therapy notes. If allowed these are often used against the victim. The Defence's job is to introduce an element of doubt in the Prosecution case . Juries are instructed that a guilty verdict should only be arrived at if the Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The CPS in your case has determined that your texts could constitute reasonable doubt. Also the jury will only hear the particulars of the specific case and will not hear about any other cases of a similar nature the defendant may have committed. This would only come out at sentencing in the event of a guilty verdict.

I have to say CPS case workers and barristers I have met are very supportive of victims and really do want to do their best to secure a conviction. Judges have training to deal with sexual abuse and domestic abuse cases and have to have a 'ticket' to try these. So I am not sure it is a universal truth that because most judges are men therefore cases are not heard sympathetically. In fact the most seemingly unsympathetic judge I have witnessed was a woman.

My view is that the problem lies in society itself. Juries often comprise people who hold misogynistic attitudes or lack understanding of the notion of consent. Also the the composition of juries needs to be considered. My heart sank in one case I supported when I saw there were 10 men on the jury and my fears for the victim were justified . Any woman, unless a vestal virgin can have their sexual history in terms of texts, letters etc used against them. Look at the case of Ched Evans.

I really understand your anger and distress OP. . I feel angry on your behalf. But in pursuing this I would urge you to consider whether you are feeling strong enough and realistic about potential treatment at court and possible outcomes given CPS decision not to recommend prosection.

I really worry about girls and women (and some men, they get raped too). I saw a recent statistic that the largest proportion of reported rapes came from 14 year olds. The availability of online porn, revenge porn, perpetuation of misogynistic stereotypes with regard female sexuality all mitigate against a reduction in these crimes.

I write to MPs , Jess Phillips, give donations and support charities that support rape and DV victims. 1970s feminists like me thought we could change society but sadly some men and boys still see women and girls as objects of sexual gratification and abuse. This needs to change, starting with education at home and school.

Whatever you decide OP, I wish you luck and healing. I believe you.

I feel like the worst has happened. Someone has seen those messages and considered them sufficient that it wouldn't be successful at trial. I feel like I need to try and really the amount of fucks I give about what people think now has been seriously altered. I really don't care what people think. I'm also no Giselle Pelicot.

It's also offensive me and other victims that a message can mean I consent to someone using my body for whatever purpose they like. When does it end? When someone dies?

I don't feel I'm asking for anything extraordinary. Just that that the law is applied fairly, ie, that his defence of consent is inadmissible based on the injury I received.

Not the same circumstances as OP's situation, but another aspect of the failed justice system.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/crown-prosecution-service-unveils-new-measures-to-improve-service-to-victims-of-crime/

I’m so sorry this happened to you. It’s really hard when something of such importance to you is decided by someone else. I assume they feel there is not a sufficiently strong enough level of evidence to get the case to where they’d expect a trial to get it to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” line - it’s such a high bar. Rape cases are a bloody nightmare, especially if there's been previous relationship, no independent witnesses, and nothing useful on phone, paper etc. It ends up being he said she said sadly, and juries are mega cautious.

It shouldn't be that a text consenting at one point covers everything from then on. It's not how consent works, it needs be constant and evolving. It's such a shit system for victims. It's important you told the police though as next time he'll have had previous. Probably doesn't make you feel better now though. I'm so sorry you're going through this.

Bullshit. This does not work for rape, hence why rape convictions are so low, it is not remotely fair or just when it comes to sexual abuse. It's amazing how the same thought process doesn't apply in other circumstances - 'well you've claimed you were burgled, but you've given things away before and you're pro charity, so how do we know you didn't willing give your TV away?'
The fact you think a text undermines her case shows the problem withsociety's attitude to rape.

Completely. I use a very similar analogy to general assault.

If someone came and hit you in the middle of the street (hard enough to cause injuries) or started choking you for that matter, no-one would ask if you consented - correctly it would be assumed you didn't. It literally shouldn't matter in cases where there is a significant injury - consent for serious injuries has never been admissible as a defence for general assault, so why is it allowed for rape and sexual assault?

Just to repeat a lot of what is happening or not happening in rape trials is about ordinary people's attitudes. ie as just repeated up thread, if juries have the sort of attitudes that think consenting to sex is consenting to violence, then this is why rapists aren't convicted.

And many in the "justice" system know this.

So effectively cases are dropped, not because they think they aren't valid but they doubt a jury will convict. A jury is working on personal judgements not the law. That's why some want rape trials to be juryless.

And the element that both the CPS and police want their record of convictions to look good.

So the controlling element in public attitudes.

What is worse is not just that members of the public, not only dont believe women, but even if they do they think a man's future career is more important than a woman getting justice.

Not helped by the huge back log in all cases going to trial because of court closures, staff issues etc., means that this too put pressures on the police and CPS to just go for open and shut cases.

This is why the police and CPS need to stop allowing the defence of consent in cases where the victim has suffered injuries though. To take this element out means that juries will be able to see things much more clearly. The only way out of it would be, it didn't happen. If there is evidence it happened then that would be the only thing the jury would be deciding on.

What I don't understand is why in spite of the law being there, the process is kept complicated.

So more a legal case about injuries, almost without referencing rape?

I thought, but this is just from memory, that some rape court cases are presented as not just about whether it was rape, but if proven (ie jury persuaded) that is an additional charge in relation to injuries.

Something similar to non fatal strangulation (I think its called) as a specific violenct act in relation to domestic violence.

Hopefully someone with more legal knowledge could explain how that works in practice in law.

re lack of sufficient funding for court system:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/05/one-five-rape-cases-dropped-complainants-waiting-years-trial-22121169/

Having watched Prima Facie at the cinema the other night this doesn’t surprise me.

Enraged and impotent were my overriding feelings watching it.

It’s a phenomenal performance by Jodie Comer if you are able to watch it.

It's still a rape cases but if the defendant can't use the defence of consent it makes the case a lot easier to prove. The only defence available would be that it hadn't happened.

I'm not a legal expert so I don't know where one offence ends and another begins.

This is kind of good. Why aren't victims getting better support now? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if people are treated with decency and respect they'll respond better.

And what is this about piloting a scheme to keep victims in the loop? This should be happening anyway. It's not that hard - pick up the phone and give them an update.