and those in the police and prosecution team who chose to take it forward be sacked. waste of money, resources, court time and complete annihilation of a young fellas reputation
Why do you say that? Having sex with an unconscious woman must be rape, since she could not have consented. Yet the unconscious women, after waking, will obviously be unable to remember what happened. If her inability to remember meant that there could be "no case to answer" as you put it, then every rapist's best course would be clear: first knock the woman unconscious, then commit the rape, and get away Scot-free. Do you think that option would be preferable to the arrangement we actually have?
evidence seems to suggest she was fully conscious, either that or shouts 'fuck me harder' in her sleep..
If a prosecution had been brought which had no hope of success (contrary to prosecutors' criteria), that would mean the prosecutor's decision to bring the case had turned out to be wrong. In E's case however, the prosecution resulted in a conviction later overturned on appeal, and acquittal at a retrial. It cannot be said that it had no hope of success. E's reputation as a selfish, arrogant, despicable sexual predator has been created by his own behaviour. His reputation as a convicted rapist no longer exists, having been overturned. So what is your point? Criminal prosecutions sometimes result in convictions, sometimes in acquittals. In neither event is the judicial process a waste of money or time. If there were never any acquittals, then we would really have something to worry about!
As an alternative to being fully unconscious, a woman might be so drunk that she is incapable of consenting; or she might be fairly drunk but still capable of consenting. If capable, she might have actually consented or not. In either event she might be able to remember or not, and she might tell the truth or not. Several possible paths exist, and the purpose of the trial process is to decide (as far as possible) which path corresponds with reality. This is, of course, fraught with problems and difficulties. That's what make these cases interesting.
As Bradders says the evidence suggests she was conscious. And by shouting as she did suggested that she not only knew what was happening but was enjoying it.
If the "victim" *in this particular case* was incapable of determining beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed ... what hope has a jury?
Indeed. This is presumably the conclusion reached by the jury in the re-trial, in the light of the evidence they had heard - some of which was not available at the first trial, including evidence on this very point.
So without specific consent there was no consent and therefore it was rape ? So is the onus upon the accused to prove there was consent or on the accuser to prove there was no consent ? And as proving beyond reasonable doubt that consent was, or was not, given would be very difficult, as it is one person's word against another's, is it on the balance of probabilities as to who's story is the most convincing. It seems that in the event of false allegations being made it would be very difficult to defend one's self and get justice. However if it came down to one person's word against another's and without proof beyond reasonable doubt there was always an aquittal it would be very difficult for a genuine victim to get justice.
Not quite. It doesn't have to be specific consent, and in this instance it was E's case that an inference should be drawn that consent was implicit in something which X had said.
But in these kind of cases beyond reasonable doubt would be very difficult to achieve, which is why presumably there are so many cases thrown out before they get to court and there is the feeling that women are being failed by the justice system.
I agree that it is extremely difficult to strike a fair and just balance between the rights of alleged victims and the rights of alleged defendants. The system in England and Wales as it exists today is an attempt to achieve that balance. Perhaps it may be improved upon in the future, although it is not obvious what kinds of changes would amount to improvements. Incidentally, Vera Baird QC the Police & Crime Commissioner for Northumbria has made some public comments about how the Court of Appeal's judgment in this case has set the cause of justice back 30 years, etc. I have met Vera Baird a few times (in her previous role as the Solicitor-General) and I have a great deal of respect for her. However in my view she is wrong on this point.
The use of sexual history to undermine the character of an alleged victim would be wholly wrong but as in this case, to examine the veracity of evidence give, seems reasonable.
Absolutely correct. For a defendant to smear the alleged victim's reputation in the eyes of the jury in the hopes of reducing the jury's belief in her truthfulness is wrong, and not allowed. In this case, the exceptional circumstances envisaged by the Youth Justice etc Act 1999 s41 happened to arise, and so relevant evidence was allowed in.
heard a lot worse language on this show from the same group of voices aimed at half the country, but it appears to have made the papers this time. ‘Horrific’ radio talk as callers debate Ched Evans case on Kaye Adams show | News | The National
