Search results

You are wrong, that is not the law. This is the law as defined by the Sexual Offences Act: A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably...

I think you need to answer the question that I have asked...that was the point of asking it...

Having argued for doubt, I have had some further thought and recollected the following... In a far off galaxy a long time ago, I escorted a good friend back to her hotel room as she was considerably worse for wear after a huge session. We had cavorted naked prior to this point some years before...

Correct, emotion has zero relevance here really. The maxim to apply, is that it is morally, but not legally, wrong to shag your best mate's wife...but it is legally, but not morally, wrong to drive at 31 mph in a 30 zone at 2am... A speed limit is an example of 'strict liability' and so is...

Have to, the direction from the judge was to consider both 'separately'. In creating the scenario you have to ignore him.

I think the level of debate on this thread, elsewhere on the internet and among some highly intelligent and legally qualified people that I know, indicates that my instincts are probably correct. This is that by the test of 'balance of probability' he would be convicted 9/10 times, but on...

So, just to boil your argument down, you are suggesting that a civilian convicted of any crime which he honestly believes to be unjust, should admit guilt to serve the purpose of his wider profession, a profession not implicated in any way by way of that individual's conduct? This is truly nuts.

Understood, you seem to be certain that due process was followed here and are convicted that the verdict will hold. I am questioning it because I think the Judge was influenced by the very particular nature of the case and rare nuances that it contains - I tend to agree with him - but feel that...

Not at all, it's a simple question 'did the complainant consent to penetration?' yes or no? Context is taken into consideration as compelling argument of course, but the nub of the argument is this.

Fair points, but the words 'seems to us to be clear' leave me uncomfortable. The interpretation is left to the Jury, and the precedent is not expressly stated by the Judge, I think it's fair comment (I choose those words advisedly :)) to say that this was deliberate.

Well, this hones in on my main concern - you've spotted it - which is, did the trial judge deliberately omit the precedent from the Swansea rape, shown above, in order to not sway the jury? If he had included the precedent - hence the nuance I referred to in my original post - would Evans have...

LOL, yes the verdict of NSC is that he is guilty...and stupid, but will it stand? Not sure...and there may yet be a twist in the tale...

The common law precedent under discussion is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drunken-consent-to-sex-is-still-consent-judge-rules-516722.html

Not necessarily, I expect that they're on a fixed retainer with consideration given to the amount of publicity garnered by this sort of thing. Carter Ruck LLP (for example) are famed for taking on horrendously difficult cases at face value, benefiting all the time from the free publicity. If...

Emotionally I think we could all agree with that...however, she was a friend of Macdonald prior to the night concerned, a 'good friend' apparently. So this raises other questions, some of which may invalidate the totally disassociated conclusions you come to above. And may yet in the future......

Lol! Are you actually trying to argue that the LCJ does not take into consideration wider opinion and consequence when making decisions, especially for the 'greater good'? Bear in mind these are their own words with reference to why they were not perturbed by the omission of the direction...

It's a circular argument, if she lacked capacity then that lack must follow through all of her actions including going back to the hotel with Macdonald. I've already said I believe he was probably wrong, the point is there is a level of doubt here that, to me, indicates that the 99% certainty...

As far as I can tell Macdonald and Evans left simultaneously by separate exits. Macdonald was present in the room when the girl asked Evans to give her oral sex and supported this. But this isn't the legal argument. The legal argument is that even if she did say that, she lacked the mental...

I understand that, but, and here's the big but, in order to create a scenario whereby the jury can determine this to be the case they must first agree that even if the girl gave consent she couldn't have meant it or lacked the capacity to mean it for Evans, but did for Macdonald. I am uncertain...

Which forms part of what I read. And this summing up begs the question: how can it be interpreted fairly when applied to both defendants? I don't think it can.