Wrongly accused of rape by wife 7 years ago

[ivedonenothing]

I never destroyed the tape as I never gave it another thought.
I never even bothered to watch it

[Faith]

It seems she didn't actually wait 7 years - she only realised this had happened when she saw the film(s).

That's why this thing confuses me as that's what I thought as well...but then the OP said she knew of the films at the time, but I could have sworn I read she only recently found them.

[ivedonenothing]

She knew of the tape at the time. It was put in our bedroom DVD
Cupboard with our normal movies. It was just forgotten about until she re discovered it again !

[Rights Fighter]

She knew of the tape at the time - but she was basically unconscious when it was made and she found it very shortly after she woke up - I think she can be forgiven for forgetting about it until present day.

The best thing you could have done would have been to apologise profusely at the time and destroyed it in front of her. Unfortunately you didn't and this is the result.

All you can hope for is that you are not charged for whatever reason.

[ivedonenothing]

So i'm entirely to blame ? It means nothing that she never did anything at the time ?
It means nothing that we enjoyed several happy married years afterwards and had a child too.
She knew about the tape at the time !
It actually meant nothing to me, which is why it escaped my mind until it was brought up again 2 weeks ago

[ivedonenothing]

I appreciate i'm gulity of filming her...but NOT rape

[Rights Fighter]

If the film shows she was unconscious throughout then that will be rape as she did not consent.

In law rape is having sexual intercourse with somebody who has not consented. If she was unconscious through it all then in law, that is rape.

Read this very carefully.....................

You filmed her while she was unconscious.

You say she saw the camera shortly AFTER you had filmed her while she was unconscious.

You had a row about it so clearly she was not happy.

You were both drunk - her to the point of being unconscious.

As she had been unconscious a short while before then it is not surprising that she has completely forgotten the incident.

It doesn't matter one jot that she saw the DVD and knew about it at the time.

At the time she was basically out of her head. Later on she forgot about the whole thing.

Finding the DVD recently has shocked her to the core.

She has reported to the police that you had sex with her while she was unconscious and that you filmed it without her permission.

All of this is correct - it is what you have told us.

Stop making excuses. Wait to see what happens. As I said it is possible that you won't be charged and if that happens just get on yours knees and thank God and make a vow to respect women and yourself in the future.

I am now done with this thread.

[RFLH]

I'm not sure if you could be charged on voyeurism too (not sure why the emoticons are in there, the appeared when I c&p'd)

67Voyeurism


[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person ( doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.

(3)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he records another person ( doing a private act,

(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and

(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.

(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]


Voyeurism: interpretation


[F1(1)For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—

(a)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,

(b)the person is using a lavatory, or

(c)the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

(2)In section 67, “structure” includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.]

[Rights Fighter]

For some reason the post seems to be repeated.


(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)............................................... ..............

(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.


(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).


Having sex with somebody without their implied consent is an offence. He knew she was not consenting to the filming as she was unconscious. Further he knew she was upset about the film when she 'came to' but he did not destroy it in front of her to reassure her it would go no further.

[RFLH]

butterfingers ........

[Casehardened]

I'm wondering if the OP's wife would have been quite so 'upset' on rediscovering the tape if divorce proceedings weren't taking place (I presume the divorce is acrimonious?)

In all fairness to I'vedonenothing I think this is the point he is trying to make.

[RFLH]

I must admit that's how I read it - but its only fair to believe that everything could be flung at him once they've dribbled over the 'evidence'.

[Casehardened]

Yes, the evidence is irrefutable; I presume that I'vedonenothing's wife took the tape & has given it to the police, so this will confirm her statement.

As Faith says, if he is charged, he will need a specialist solicitor who can argue that in the context of what was then a loving marriage, he assumed that he had deemed consent.

Without wanting to speculate, but a similar scenario may well have occurred on other occasions during their marriage, without the camera of course.