Simply a mistake anyone could make, or not?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/5ufglpk

How did he get into the woman's hotel room without a key, and could he have had sex with her without her waking up, obviously he did not use force.

So who is the guilty person?

[pastafreak]

katie sounds more like an ignorant 15 year old boy who thinks he knows everything....NOT like any woman I or any of us on here would know.

[boxtops]

sqad, if someone had sex with me without my consent (or indeed without my knowledge, which seems to be implied here) I would certainly classify it as rape. I don't understand how the woman didn't throw him off - the article says that it was the man who realised that he had the wrong woman, not the woman going "who the F is that?!"

[pastafreak]

oh look...another 'newbie' with an instant opinion....wow

[Sqad]

boxy

<<<<<if someone had sex with me without my consent (or indeed without my knowledge, which seems to be implied here) I would certainly classify it as rape.<<<<<

Yes you might call it rape....but the courts may disagree and so may the "assailant".............and there lies the rub.

[sara3]

2 women who say they didn't consent to rape, plus he stole her phone on the way out.

I don't actually know what DNA/other evidence may have been involved as I wasn't there, nor was I part of the investigation/prosecution/reporting.teams.

[sara3]

you back already, love?

[pastafreak]

From rapecrisis.org.uk....see the last three lines......

rape & the law -> Definition of rape
definition of rape
What is the current definition of rape in law?

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1 May 2004. It repealed almost all of the existing statute law in relation to sexual offences. The purpose of the Act is to strengthen and modernise the law on sexual offences, whilst improving preventative measures and the protection of individuals from sexual offenders.

N.B. The wording regarding the law on our website uses the terminology that is commonly used in Law and legal proceedings. The offence of Rape (Sec 1(1) SOA 2003) can only be committed by a man; however, a woman can be charged with, or convicted of rape as a secondary party. For example, a woman may be convicted of rape where she facilitated (helped) a man who has raped another person.

The main provisions of the Act include the following:

Rape is widened to include oral penetration
Significant changes to the issue of consent and the abolition of the Morgan defence
Specific offences relating to children under 13, 16 and 18
Offences to protect vulnerable persons with a mental disorder
Other miscellaneous offences
Strengthening the notification requirements and providing new civil preventative orders
What is the definition of consent?

The Act has three important provisions relating to consent. They are:

A statutory definition of consent
The test of reasonable belief in consent
The evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent and the defendant's belief in consent
Section 74 defines consent as "if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice" . In the offences of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, a pe

[pastafreak]

Section 74 defines consent as "if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice" . In the offences of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, a person (A) is guilty of an offence if (s)he:

Acts intentionally;
(B) does not consent to the act; and
does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth. This is a major change in the law and the Act abolishes the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. It means that the defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps he took to satisfy him that the complainant consented.

[Sqad]

pasta...the last 3 lines are not complete.

[237SJ]

This case reminds me of the one where the rapist was acquitted because he claimed to be sleepwalking. Maybe a dangerous precedent was set then.

[Sqad]

pasta...ooops ! sorry...didnt realise there was more to come.

[pastafreak]

I got cut off sqad......

;-((

[Sqad]

pasta...LOL

[tamborine]

This case is a huge set back for justice for rape and the Act of 2003 from pasta. Hope some good legals take it up to protect women.

Surely, the CPS would be annoyed.

[pastafreak]

It sounds like either the prosecution or the police did not do their jobs.

[anotheoldgit]

So many answers have been removed, which makes reading it almost like King George V1 must have felt.