LSE Law video of panel presentations: Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf, Ben Cooper, Sarah Vine

[GreenUp]

Just watched this video of the presentations and Q&A with Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf KC, Ben Cooper KC and Sarah Vine KC.

It's really worth a watch as they deal with lots of the myths and potential challenges in the aftermath of the SC Judgment.

Thanks so much for this. She is quite something. My favourite part so far is where she simply says ‘no’.

They are brilliant. I watched this last night and felt reassured about the guardian article saying there was huge backlash in the EHRC to the interim guidance.

Huge thanks for posting - SO looking forward to watching it all... just watched the beginning so far.

Interesting to hear that they hope to have a full legal debate in the next month or so, as two lawyers on the other side of the debate are ready to discuss... anyone know who these two might be?? I'm guessing one might be a certain judge... seriously hope not a certain barrister who seems decidedly intellectually challenged...I would genuinely like to hear from intelligent people who support the opposing viewpoint (at the moment they seem to be decidedly lacking!! - I wonder why?!?!?!?!?)

Thanks for posting

Thankyou GreenUp, bookmarking to watch later

@loveyouradvice I imagine RMW must be one of them. Tbh I do respect Robin for speaking out on this where most will not. I absolutely disagree with him but fair play to him for getting out there and arguing his case, even if it is self centered and non-sensical.

Could someone please post a link to the video?

I can’t wait to hear all his MEMEMEME WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEE being dismantled by intelligent people who give a shit about women and girls. Brave of him.

Blimey! That was so good to watch. I feel a few stone lighter this morning. Thanks for posting @GreenUp

There's a link in the OP. If you click on the image then it will start playing. You can then click where it says "Youtube" and the video will then open in Youtube instead.

Thanks so much for posting this. Lots of information. Lots of myths busted. I’d love a transcript - so many killer quotes! Should be required viewing in all DEI Departments…

eta the Sarah Vine stuff about future legal needs for sex by deception and consent were very interesting. Privacy in relation to gender/sex is not a thing when it comes to the act of sex and consent. (Also was horrified to discover that while removal of a condom does remove consent given, a lie about having a vasectomy does not?! WTF? That needs changing - another letter to my MP needed….) as you were

This was utterly brilliant thanks for posting. I'd like a follow up with some KCs with knowledge of safeguarding law (and also Akua R and Naomi C again because they're both so brilliant) so they could properly discuss and hopefully answer the question about schools and compelled speech.

Slightly disappointed after the discussion about 'consent' that no question was asked about what if a doctor with a feminine gender identity (like Dr Upton) refused to acknowledge a patient's expressed wish for single sex care. What are the legal remedies?

I hope LSE do another one!

Link is not showing up in my mobile app.

link above direct to YouTube for anyone who couldn’t see the first one

For me that clearly fell into the criminal sphere as assault via sex by deception. but IANAL! Presumably these things are all to come - but what gloriously clear, measured and reassuring speakers!

Oh, sorry. I'm looking at this from the website.

"...a lie about having a vasectomy does not?! WTF?"

I haven't seen the video yet so I don't know if they covered the background to this. Sorry if I'm repeating anything that was in the video.

If a woman consents to have sex with a man on the condition that he wears a condom but he then removes it without her knowledge that removes her consent.

The reason for this is that she has only agreed to have sex with a man while using a condom. She has not consented to sex without a condom.
.

In contrast, with the alleged vasectomy case, the Court of Appeal said that the woman had agreed to have sex without a condom. The issue then was, as the court put it, "the nature of his ejaculate".

She had agreed to have unprotected sex with him but he had lied as to "the nature of his ejaculate" and she got pregnant.

The Court said that him not telling the truth about a vasectomy was not closely enough connected with the act of having sex as to have removed her consent. She had agreed to have sex with a man without a condom and that is what happened.

You might argue "I wouldn't have had unprotected sex if I'd known" but the Court has long held that a "but for" test is not sufficient to remove consent. eg "If I'd known he was married I wouldn't have had sex with him" or "If I'd known he was a policeman I wouldn't have had sex with him".

There is a link to the case here:

R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971

Wonderful video, thank you.

thank you for the extra info

It’s still a WTF issue for me! They did give a bit of explanation so I had understood that for the judge the issue of fertility wasn’t closely linked to the giving of consent for the sex act - but I’d respectfully say thats not really taking into account the consequences or female POV at all. If it were consumer law it would be mis-selling. And maybe they think it’s a civil matter rather than a criminal one where she sues the father. But it’s not like buying a faulty toaster is it? You’ve got to either have a termination or care for a human for the rest of your life - I’d wildly say those consequences could be considered assault because those were forced on the woman as a consequence of that man’s lie? So I think they’ve got this wrong and it should be changed. But IANAL.

Thank you so much OP for posting. This has made my day.

Oh yes, I totally agree with you - I'm just stating the current position of the law.

Don't forget that we are talking about consent here. Sex without consent is rape.

So the question was "Does lying about a vasectomy and then having sex constitute rape?"

The court said that it doesn't.

In a similar way, consider a person who has an STI (maybe HIV or herpes). They have sex with another person but lie about their status and recklessly transmit it to the other person.

Again, this does not, by itself, remove consent. However, in the case of STIs this is charged as the offence of grievous bodily harm instead.

I think the conclusion from this is that the law is mostly by men for men. I got the sense that Sarah Vine was probably of this opinion too though didn't say so explicitly.

That's why there was a carve out for peerages in the GRA too of course. By men for men.

There are some lovely decent men though and fantastic to see Ben Cooper there too and whoever the chair was (menopause brain can't remember) and Peter Daly is great too.

Yes - but maybe in this case of the vasectomy the CPS going for rape went for the wrong prosecution. I don’t know what that would be - and maybe it’s a new/unclassified crime. But it should defo be serious punishment because the consequences are so serious for the victim. That bloke should have been taken to the cleaners

I thought this was a great video. Very clear and easy to follow.

I wonder what is the law the other way around? If a woman removes a condom* or lies about contraceptives? Of course the implications for a man are not so dire but if a lie about a vasectomy was to be criminal should a lie about taking the pill also be criminal?

*I have no idea whether this is something a woman could do without a man noticing.

Thank you for this video, it was most interesting. A veritable must listen!