UKC

This is wrong.

As I understand it, rape laws have been applied to consensual sex because she lied.
So perhaps having sex saying you are single when legally married is now rape ?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eigh...

I hope she gets out quickly.

In reply to David Riley:

It's a strange story, but your interpretation of it is equally strange. There is a clear consent issue here.

In reply to David Riley:

This is a local story to us (Chester) and has therefore received a lot of coverage.

Your interpretation is totally wide of the mark. She consented with someone she believed was male, not another female. This is ALL about consent, a breach of trust and an abuse.

She was certainly naïve here, but that is no excuse.

In reply to The New NickB:

Maybe I missed something. But they chose to have sex ten times over a long period.
Is it not correct that it is considered rape because consent was given on the basis of false information ?

In reply to The New NickB:


What is that consent issue?
As far as I know about the law, it's not illegal to lie about being the other sex - and it was between two consenting adults. I don't think you can give "conditional consent" - I thought it's just a yes or a no as to what you receive; valid until it's revoked.

Obviously I think what she did was totally sick in the head, but I'm just struggling to see where exactly the heinous crime comes into it?

In reply to David Riley:

Do you need the cup of tea example here?

In reply to Rampikino:

Clearly that is what the judge thought. But it makes no sense to me in these gender equality days.
Why is gender more important than marital status ?

In reply to David Riley:

To be honest, you have to take into account not just the gender part but the story as a whole. The victim was tricked into thinking that Newland was a man and the way she maintained the trick was to insist on the blindfold being used. This tells you that Newland was fully aware that she was doing something that the victim was not happy with and that, as eventually happened, if "unmasked" she would cry foul.

Knowing this, she continued to take advantage of a naïve woman in a sexual way, deceiving her into having sex under false pretences.

In reply to David Riley:

Read the story and details properly. It wasn't solely about the gender at all.

In reply to Rampikino:


I don't think anyone is disagreeing to this. It's just that _how is it illegal_ - is the question.

In reply to Rampikino:

So is not claiming to be single the same ?

In reply to SenzuBean:


Are you really asking me if tricking someone into having sex in this manner is illegal?

A conviction and 8 years tells me it is.

In reply to Rampikino:

I've edited my question to say "how is it illegal", as that's what I meant.

In reply to David Riley:

It's certainly a breach of trust, but unless it starts to involve blindfolding someone and penetrating them with a prosthetic penis knowing full well that it is an unwanted deception then I'm afraid I can't judge the two on the same scale.

In reply to Rampikino:



Jeez, that's about 3 miles from where I live and I've read or heard nothing, much to the amazement of Mrs Glyno!

In reply to Glyno:



Read your Chester Chronicle matey!!

In reply to The New NickB:


Only if you believe the other woman didn't know she was in bed with a woman.

In reply to David Riley:

No, it's not the same! Are you serious?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


...which the court, after due process agreed that she did not.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well, the court did having heard all the evidence and cross examining all parties, so yes, on balance I think I'd believe their conclusions rather than your speculation.

In reply to SenzuBean:

"As far as I know about the law, it's not illegal to lie about being the other sex"

Actually it is illegal. Transgender people have been sent to prison for it.

In reply to Rampikino:

Well how about comparing it to men who have multiple families on the go, lying to each family that he's on a business trip - while he's instead out with the other family? As far as I know, that's not illegal. It's reprehensible, calculated, all of the same bad things - but would that man get 8 years? (he didn't get 1 day in the story I know).
The fact in this case it was a strap-on doesn't change anything, and I don't think the blindfold does either if it's voluntary (which it was).

In reply to Ian Rock:



Source? If that's true, then I guess that explains it.

In reply to The New NickB:


Exactly.. It's very clear.

In reply to David Riley:

Would a man, missing his natural penis, but secretly using the blindfold-and-prosthetic ruse, be liable for the same crime? (Asking for a friend.)

In reply to SenzuBean:

I think you are trying to compare the incomparable.

In reply to Rampikino:

I'm sure it's not uncommon for it to include

or

You can't backdate it and make it rape.

In reply to humptydumpty:

Potentially yes, but I can't be certain without looking up the law on consent to be penetrated by a prosthetic penis!

In reply to Rampikino:


Well I think you're trying to say "it's illegal because I don't like it".

In reply to David Riley:

You can if it's a deception.

In reply to SenzuBean:


Where on earth does that come from? How on earth did you reach that conclusion about me?

To me, this is a clear case of a deception, consent that was not given, sexual penetration in a way that was not agreed and the manipulation of a naïve woman. You're damn right I don't like that, but I would rather hope nobody does.

It also doesn't make infidelity any more palatable either, but I don't think you can put this case on the same scale.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes. Hence the court case!

In reply to Rampikino:


I thought that's what this case was about, but with the penis-less man replaced by a woman.

I guess I'm unclear if the offence was lying about her gender, or pretending a prosthetic was her real penis.

In reply to humptydumpty:

Convicted of three counts of sexual assault.

In reply to Ian Rock:




If that's true and I don't believe it is. Then it's wrong too.

In reply to JayPee630:


Which post is that an answer to?

In reply to David Riley:


I think after the publicity, she's out already.

In reply to humptydumpty:

I think you might be looking at it from a slightly different angle to me - I think the offence is consent based and therefore the gender/prosthetic elements are more the medium through which the offence materialise. (If that makes sense)

In reply to winhill:

Really ? Recruited by MI5 ?

In reply to Rampikino:




Well as I've tried to establish - most of those are not crimes. It's not a crime to deceive, it's not a crime to manipulate. Any lack of consent would hinge on the definition of "consent". And I guess that's the crux of the matter - that it seems consent was retroactively revoked because of the deception (because the women did say yes, she said yes to blindfolded, v* penetration 10 times). And that logic is where the issue lies, as that logic sets a powerful precedent and can lead to many more things being made crimes (i.e. my example of having multiple families).

In reply to humptydumpty:

What she was convicted of.

In reply to David Riley: Yes thats probably one of the repercussions: its seems no longer is, All fair in Love and War.
....Maybe exclude the war bit.

Eight Years! I think a fair sentence would be 12 months suspended and maybe 100 hours community service. I would love to see this vile Judge go down for 8 years. But everyone knows uk justice is all about having the most expensive legal team. And she obviously didnt.

In reply to SenzuBean:
From a similar case: McNally v R:

"Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."

In other words, pretending to be a man would remove consent as per section 76 of the sexual offences act. However:


"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

i.e. lying about being married or rich would not, as they do not relate to the nature of the sexual act.

That seems like a reasonable position to me.

In reply to _sllab_:

And you came to this decision on sentence having heard none of the evidence, but by just reading a newspaper report or two? I'd rather the flawed justice system actually.

In reply to _sllab_:

Uh-oh thread hijack. My point has been made. Byeeeeeeeeee.

In reply to JayPee630:

Seriously JayPee, if you can be bothered then go and look at the conspiracy theory threads and you will understand a bit more about the mindset of _sllab_

It's a thread hijack

In reply to Rampikino:

Just had a quick look, bloody hell. What an idiot.

In reply to _sllab_:

She's not going to do it again.
As a danger to society she must be very low on the list.
Eight years in prison does not seem to be in the public interest.

In reply to MarkJH:







Good to have some clear information. However I would disagree that lying to someone for years about loving them, and not cheating on them etc, is 8 years less serious than saying "I'm a dude". In fact the quotes you provided don't explicitly rule this out - it seems it's up to the judge's discretion as to what is deception enough to 'vitiate consent'.

In reply to Rampikino:

I'm with you on this.

It is a question of consent. If she had been in possession of all the facts, would she have consented. it is the same question as "if she was sober and not passed out, would she have consented"?

Rape and sexual offences hinge on consent and the question of whether it would be reasonable to believe consent would be given, or not.

For example, if I thought I was banging some bird but only on condition I wore a blindfold, then after ripping it off realised that I did not have a prosthetic penis up my bum, but Sloper's knob, then it is fair to assume I would not have given my consent to be penetrated by the finest legal mind capable of onsighting 6b*.


Peak 6b, which as everyone knows is really Yorkshire 5c

In reply to _sllab_:

I don't think you understand the justice system

You do know the prosecution will have been brought by the CPS, every man dog and woman of which drives an Aston Martin and has a house in Tuscany....

In reply to JayPee630:

You are a Complete Fool. They are making obtaining sex by deception a crime. Any other talk is verbose claptrap.

In reply to _sllab_:
No they're not.

And I know this is a bit of a personal question, but are you generally mentally stable and healthy? The stuff you're posting on here is the product of quite an unwell person.

In reply to _sllab_:

and you, if I may paraphrase Robin Day, are a here today, gone tomorrow troll.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat

No they drive BMW 5/6 series and have second homes in the Cotswalds

In reply to MarkJH:
So we now have law that leaves us all at the mercy of the courts. The law should not have to state that having falsely claimed you're rich "will not be sufficient to vitiate consent" leaving claiming to be a film star, or older, or younger, open to question. This is wrong.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

We are all here today gone tomorrow wretch.

In reply to David Riley:

Do you actually understand anything about the case or the law? You're just spouting weird drivel that doesn't make any sense.

In reply to David Riley:

I read it in a simpler way David:

Claiming to be a pop star, footballer or being rich does not affect material sexual consent.

Claiming to be of a different gender, does.

In reply to _sllab_:

you'll be gone, like Niggle*, Rothermere and Mystery Turd.


*technically back but much improved - sort of David Miller of trolling.

In reply to David Riley:




If you kill your mother you're unlikely to repeat the offence. No prison sentence for matricide?

In reply to Rampikino:

It's a slippery slope.
To me it seems to discriminate on grounds of gender.
But leaving that aside, I assume you would think that an 80 year old man pretending to be 19 to an 18 year old woman, would "affect material sexual consent" ?
So getting your age wrong could potentially leave you open to prosecution.

Buyer beware seems to have gone.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

David's not the best at critical thought or constructing a logical argument.

In reply to David Riley:

Yes, in some circumstances someone pretending to be an 18 year old woman when they're an 80 year old man (on the internet is the only example I can think of where this might be possible) would affect 'material sexual consent'.

Stop getting fixated on the gender, the case was about much more than just that.

In reply to David Riley:

You're an idiot. It's not 'getting your age wrong' is it? It's planned, long term, in depth deception on numerous fronts for sexual reasons. Why is that so difficult to understand as wrong?

In reply to MarkJH:

Think you're absolutely right, in particular the passage:

"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent. In our judgment, Lord Judge's observation that "the evidence relating to 'choice' and the 'freedom' to make any particular choice must be approached in a broad commonsense way" identifies the route through the dilemma."

says all that needs to be said. The statutory definitions of consent list a number of circumstances in which there cannot be, or is presumed not to be, consent but this particular situation- and many other conceivable situations- are not expressly covered. It wouldn't be possible for statute to provide an exhaustive list so its has been left to the courts to develop the law.

For those interested, full judgment here, paras 1-27: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html

In reply to Sir Chasm:

True. But the offence was murder which could be repeated. Putting murderers into prison is in the public interest.

In reply to David Riley:

Not really. The law is clear enough; it's relationship to specific events may be less so. That is nothing new and judges have always had to interpret to a degree.

However, it is true that consent can be conditional. e.g. "We can't have sex without a condom" could lead to a rape charge if the condition is ignored. Similarly "We can only have sex if you are not married" could also lead to a rape charge if it turned out to be false.

"I wouldn't have had sex with you if I had known you were married" is not going to get you into trouble as you have to not have a reasonable belief of consent for the offence to exist.

In reply to MarkJH:


How does that work ? It's alright if the person did not state it ? Did the woman in question actually say she wouldn't have sex with her if she was a woman too ?

In reply to David Riley:

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before, and I haven't looked into this case particularly deeply, but it seems fairly straightforward consent to me.

The relevant consent issue is raised if the complainant is deceived as to the nature or purpose of the act.

In this case the complainant appears to have "consented" to having sex penis per vagina. She has not consented to being penetrated by a prosthetic penis.

Newlands was convicted of sexual assault, not rape. (You need a penis to commit rape).

Tricking someone into having sex because you tell them you are a fighter pilot, or lie about your age, isn't a criminal offence. The "nature" of the act is the same.

In reply to David Riley:


No, conditional consent relates to section 74; nature of the sexual act relates to section 76.

In reply to The New NickB:


The whole thing is totally far fetched. First wearing a blindfold. She actually said she thought the 'man' sounded like her friend i.e. not only had a female voice but one she recognised. It is hard to believe that in a sexual situation she wouldn't have touched her partner's body and it is even harder to believe that she couldn't tell the difference between male and female just by touch: most people could tell by kissing never mind more intimate touching. Most people could also tell the difference between the sexes just by smell especially in a sexual situation.

The obvious explanation is that she knew fine or at least had strong suspicions and was suspending disbelief and intentionally not doing any of the completely normal things people do during sex that would make it clear.

It's not that long ago a bunch of gay men were imprisoned for GBH because they were into S&M, this could be the same kind of situation with people acting on moral/religious views on trans/bi sexual kinky sex and/or consent and jailing someone for 8 years as a consequence. Rolf Harris got less than that.

In reply to David Riley:

I suggest you read the judge's summing up if you can be bothered to find it (I can't); makes for some uncomfortable reading.

Consider a lesbian being tricked into thinking she was having sex with another woman (up to ten times) but was in fact being penetrated by a man. I doubt we'd be having this debate in those circumstances.

In reply to David Riley:
When I first read the reports, I was amazed that such a case would come to court, let alone lead to a conviction and such a heavy sentence. I can't help but feel that if this case was in Russia, or even mid-western US, there would accusations of homophobia at this case. Namely that that a preposterous tale from a woman who claims to be straight is given far more credence than an odd but far more believable story from someone gay and possibly trans.

Big caveat - We are reliant simply on the PA report, probably a single source, and the jury heard the full facts and saw both parties in court.

But I'm sorry, the prosecution case doesn't strike me as plausible. Would someone really spend 100 hours in someone's company, and have sex 10 times, whilst wearing a blindfold ALL THE TIME ? Far more likely is that both women had issues with gender, sexuality and self-esteem and the double identity element in the relationship was simply a means of them coming to terms with all that, as the defendant claims.

In reply to off-duty:

Thank you for that.

So guilty on a technicality really. I'm sure the fake penis was not the main issue for the victim and not seen as a danger by the defendant.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Happy to help

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/r-v-newlandsentenci...

In reply to David Riley:



A technicality if you consider that being repeatedly penetrated by a plastic penis, during the course of a lengthy deception, including deceit even as to the sex of the person the victim thought she was having a relationship with, as "a technicality".

The summing up, with slightly more detail , suggests that it was quite a compelling prosecution case.

In reply to off-duty:

I call it a technicality if you say everything else was lawful.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




If only we had a system where we could have a bunch of people, with opinions and beliefs similar to ours, who could hear all the evidence, and maybe even see the accused and the complainant themselves.
That way perhaps those people could come to a rational judgement on what has occurred.

In reply to David Riley:


Aah. So a technicality like: she was happy to drink my drinks, she was happy enough to give me a kiss, so the fact I had sex with her when she was unconscious means that the rape was just a technicality.

In reply to off-duty:

I don't see any relevance in that.

In reply to David Riley:
Interesting question legally speakng.

I guess the interpretation on which she (the perp) was convicted must be that the victim did not consent to sex with her. She consented to sex with a guy that as it happens doesn't exist.

I think that makes sense. In the same way as if a guy blind folded his girlfriend and then someone else had sex with her pretending to be the boy friend - that's rape.

Grey area where someone gives a false name and occupation - eg there was a guy pretending to be a ManU player to get laid a few years back.

In reply to David Riley:


Consent is the lynch pin of rape (or in this case the sexual assault) - dismissing it as "a technicality" rather undermines the whole point of it being an offence.

In reply to off-duty:

So my friend with the prosthetic penis (up-thread) would also be sexually assaulting?

In reply to off-duty:

But the technicality is the use of the fake penis. If she had stuck to oral sex it would not have been sexual assault.

In reply to humptydumpty:


Yes, I believe they would. Complainant consents to sex with "a penis" but instead is penetrated with "something else".

So not 8 years for lying.
It should have been 8 years for a false penis.

In reply to off-duty:


Another part of the system is we get to talk about the outcomes of trials and question them if they seem irrational. Courts do plenty of stupid and biased things e.g. a judge in the US just took a foster child away from a couple because they were lesbians.


But in this case their judgement doesn't seem rational. It's about as credible as Little Red Riding Hood not being able to tell the difference between a wolf and her grandmother.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What do they call killing your mattress?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Exactly, and providing just another example why trial by jury is overrated. You are going to get crowd stupidity as likely as crowd wisdom.

CB

In reply to off-duty:


There's going to be a lot of Anne Summers customers getting nervous if they start handing out 8 year jail sentences for that.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


No problem. But we are handicapped by a third hand (at best) knowledge of the case, and no idea of the credibility of anyone involved.


Or perhaps of a 55 year old from a council estate believing that a 32 year old marine in Afghanistan loves her. And needs her life savings as he's just been in a car crash.

Love, loneliness, vulnerability, and naivety are not criminal traits.

In reply to David Riley:

>rape laws have been applied to consensual sex because she lied.

Should have been an undercover policeman.

Yet another case of one law for us and another for the police

In reply to Indy:

I'm not really sure what you are saying.
I think it's established now that the offence was not the lies but the artificial penis.
So perhaps you're saying that if she had been an undercover policeman, she would have had a penis, and so would not be guilty. Which seems to be true.

In reply to krikoman:


Mattricide. Obviously.

In reply to David Riley:



if there was no penetration, there would have been no rape but there would have been sexual assault. It's about who she consented to have sex with.

The undercover police men cases are less clear cut.

In reply to David Riley:


No that's not the case.

A bit of further reading suggest that in fact I was wrong about some of the detail.

Without wanting to get too sucked in to a discussion of the exact articles relating to consent in law, it appears that lying about to gender in a sexual act CAN (not "will") give rise to a situation where the complainant has not given consent.

This is taking the common sense approach that the "act" you are consenting to is, in essence sex with a male (or female) specifically, and the physical nature of that act is changed if the person doing that act is not the sex that you thought they were.

This is different from lying about the fact you are rich, young etc - the physical act remains the same.

So had the sexual act been just oral sex - it is highly likely the result would have been the same (stated cases suggest it would have been).

(The fact there was penetration by a plastic penis, not a real penis does make the offence much more clear cut, as previously discussed.)

In reply to Indy:



If the undercover police are guilty of rape, so is any married man who has ever suggested they are single in order to sleep with someone else.
(And vice versa - married women would be guilty of sexual assault...)

In reply to off-duty:

David really is struggling with understanding this, and seems a bit fixated on the false penis when clearly that wasn't what the case rested on.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What about killing your mother with a mattress?

In reply to krikoman:


Mamattricide?

In reply to krikoman:

Flatricide.

In reply to off-duty:


Not even close to being the same.

In reply to Indy:


It's not a criminal offence to be a deceitful immoral b@st@rd. And it isn't rape.

In reply to Indy:

I've read the whole thread and am still not sure what the case hinges on. It's clearly not the same kind of consent issue as is contested in most rape cases because those are most typically about whether consent was given at all or whether the victim found themselves in a position where they weren't able to make clear they weren't giving consent. It seems to have been established higher up that it's not about the fake penis but that it is about the issue of gender. I have to say, if it really does hinge on the assumption of 'binary' gender identities then that seems to be potentially problematic in terms of establishing the gender of any alleged assailant if any potential victim claims to have subsequently 'discovered' that the gender of the assailant was different to what was claimed at the time of the offence.

The blindfold clearly complicates things a lot here but then the victim apparently consented to the blindfold; not straightforward.

In reply to David Riley:

I can't get my head around this - it's hard to believe that this woman didn't twig that she was being penetrated by an inanimate object, but given that the other woman was found guilty 8 years seems unduly harsh. I'm sure I've read about violent rapists who've dragged women into the bushes and raped them at knifepoint and got considerably less. The two things aren't comparable to my mind.

In reply to David Riley:

Ignoring the legality issues I find it very difficult to see how a woman could convincingly pull off a stunt of pretending to be a man in 10 consecutive sexual encounters.
It's like a storyline from blackadder "just call me Bob" or the Monty python stoning scene "get your beards here".

Even with various disguises a rubber cock is never going to be as realistic as a real one no matter what Ann summers wants to sell.

In reply to gethin_allen:
I saw a black man strip in a Llandudno pub earlier this year and wasn't sure the huge cock was fake.
But I agree she should have known.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I don't think you have - i watched that thing about "date rape" the other day and that said the starting point for rape is 8 years. I'm sure violence would increase the sentence considerably.

I see my point has been taken up in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11993361/The-Gayle-Newland-sen...

or more obviously

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11261464/Lied-your-way-into-se...

In reply to andy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-198034/Crown-appeals-baby-rape-sent...

5 years for raping a baby.

In reply to David Riley:


Why?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



Blimey. Stand corrected (although technically don't they halve the sentence for a guilty plea?).

In reply to andy:

It's a third off for an early guilty plea. That case may have been a while ago, and it's in Scotland with different laws.

In reply to David Riley:


Has it? I'm as puzzled by this as everyone else but I assumed, from the Guardian report originally linked, that it was more to do with what happened after the blindfold finally came off.

Not having read the summing up, I don't have any idea about what actually happened, but the bit where the defendant says that that she had repeatedly apologised for what happened after the victim took the blindfold off suggests to me a scenario in which consent, if it had ever properly been given, was definitely withdrawn at that stage but someone wasn't listening.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

But not by you! thats for sure.

In reply to JayPee630:

Give me 1 example of this insanity?

And give me 1 example your Intelligence?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Off-duty was convincing that it all came down to the fake penis. But has since said he was wrong.

So we're back to the original 8 years for lying.

In reply to David Riley:

Or for not stopping when asked to do so.

In reply to David Riley:



To clarify - the first "hurdle" of consent relates to the fact she lied about her gender. That in itself might not be enough to convict - the calculated (and complicate) nature of it, and it's length are almost certainly what makes it fail that test.

The second hurdle relates to penetration by a fake plastic penis, not sex. It would almost certainly fail that test.

Worth reading the summary. It's considerably more than just one "little" lie.

In reply to _sllab_:


"They" whoever "They" are, are doing nothing of the sort.

In reply to off-duty:
Did I ever suggest it was just one little lie ?

I object to the stupid fuzzy laws that make it so difficult to pinpoint the difference between not guilty and life imprisonment. They make it possible ( if unlikely) to convict someone doing things that are fairly common. Indeed one suspects that may be seen as an advantage.

I thought it was a principle of the law that offences were taken in isolation. Not just deciding that the person is bad and must therefore be guilty of anything they are charged with.
If she sexually assaulted after being told to stop then she is guilty. Otherwise she is not. Nothing that happened before that had anything to do with it. It is up to you to decide if you have enough information to give consent beforehand and not something you can change after the event.
If someone injures you or infects you during sex then that's GBH not sexual assault and consent doesn't come into it.
Is it really a mandatory minimum term of 8 years for sexual assault ? That could be something quite minor ?

In reply to David Riley:

It isn't the law that is stupid and fuzzy in this case, it is reality that is stupid and fuzzy, as it has a tendency to be! The judge and jury is using the law to make sense of a very strange situation. Rightly, sensibly and based on previous rulings in my view.

I have some questions about the sentencing, based on the mental state of the accused, but they are probably as much to do with my lack of knowledge of sentencing guidelines as anything.

In reply to David Riley:

The Law's an ass.

In reply to _sllab_:

Hear hear old boy. One has to ponder the intelligence of the Judge in practice.

Such stories would have made for jolly amusing tales back in the smoking rooms. I find it preposterous that one could complain of her shagging partner after consenting to 10 blindfolded f*cks. As a rule, one must know who we are shagging.

One would throw this case to the bin of Darwin. The judge and all!

In reply to The New NickB:

Does a fuzzy reality lead to proof beyond reasonable doubt?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


There are two questions that the law is trying to deal with, one is was what is alleged actually happen? The second is the question of whether that is a crime. It seems to me from my third hand reading of the case that it has done that reasonably successfully. My point was that you cannot write an individual law for every single circumstance.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



Did they do it up to ten times?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

The 10 times thing works both ways though - it makes it increasingly less likely that the recipient didn't actually know what was going on.

In general though, it's clearly a complex case and I haven't got the inclination to study it enough to form a clear view.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Why? Do you know her sexual history? Don't you think she will have been asked that specific question in her police video intervieww, and by the defence in cross examination?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



You were talking about sentencing, not guilt.

In reply to off-duty:

Common sense. Something you seem to switch-off in your dogmatic insistence that there is never any shade of grey in any discussion of sexual offences, and in your blind and unquestioning faith in the justice system. I wish I could be the same to be honest, it would make life much easier.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Good point.

In reply to David Riley:



Do you think cases like this are fairly common?


The jury convicted her of a number of specific charges. I think she was also acquitted on two specific charges.
Each charge will be a specific event, taken in isolation.


Yes. The information you have should enable you decide whether you consent to the act. The act that was consented to in this case was heterosexual sexual activity. That wasn't the act that the defendant intended to take place.


Yes, in general. But if you were to specifically ask if the other party had HIV, they denied it, despite clearly knowing they had, then there might be a case.


As I remember the 8 year guideline relates to penetration. And it is a guideline rather than mandatory.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Rather than a personal attack perhaps you could illustrate my "dogmatic faith" by actually raising an argument.
I am well aware of the many shades of grey involved in sexual relationships, but I am also aware of where the law tries to divide those shades into blacker or whiter.
And I know from first hand experience how these investigations, in all their shades, are investigated and prosecuted, or dropped.

In reply to off-duty:

Your personal experience would, I thought, have given you more awareness of the infallibility of the criminal justice system, but I have never once seen you do anything but defend the outcome of any case debated on here.

As for "personal attack", I'd have thought a few years in the police would have given you a thicker skin. However, if you're involved in investigating sexual crimes I take my hat off to you - rather you than me.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Largely because most of the cases debated on here involve some degree of misunderstanding of the facts or the law. On occasion it's a discussion on the investigation/police actions, where I have been clear when I think we've been poor.


No personal issue. Just that it's a bit pointless if it all descends into ad hom.

However, if you're involved in investigating sexual crimes I take my hat off to you - rather you than me.

Cheers, it's appreciated.

In reply to faffergotgunz:

You were funnier when you were speaking gangsta.

Brah.