Men could be convicted of rape even if the woman agrees to sex ...

[Izzy]

A man could be convicted of rape even if the woman agreed to have sex, judges ruled yesterday.

A court headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, ruled in a sign-post decision that a man would still be guilty if he did something she asked him not to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...grees-sex.html

[RFLH]

I posted that then deleted after re-reading it - the headline is very misleading.

[Izzy]

Hi RFLH, I've just re-read it and agree - happy enough for it to be deleted... again

[Boys don't cry]

A quick personal point of view in case it's deleted:

I think it should stay to stress another way to get accused of rape.

I am not in favour of the man nor the woman in this case but they should have only take necessary precaution against the pregnancy.

[Izzy]

I've mulled over it all morning and I still don't get it.

I don't find it the clearest of articles but could it mean if the withdrawl method didn't work (which is quite likely!) and an unwanted pregnancy occurred then
the man could be charged with rape?
He is accused of not sticking to a pre-sex verbal deal but then there is religion thrown in, which makes it more confusing.

[friday]

I may be misunderstanding it but it sounds to me like it is not the fact the withdrawal method didn't work (as in he tried to do the pre agreed plan but miscalculated) but because he intentionally went against her request to stop at a certain point saying 'because you are my wife and I'll do it if I want'. If that statement is true then it sounds like it's part of a bigger picture of abuse/controlling behaviour.

[Izzy]

After reading it here - http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.u...still-be-rape/

It puts a completely different light on it. DM article was misleading.

[Casehardened]

In this latest link it was interesting to read that from May 'victims'* will be entitled to a 'Right of Review' presumably this will apply if the CPS's decision is not to prosecute.

This does seem like it might be another imbalance in the scales of justice as it will give another prompt to push a borderline case through on the basis the 'victim' may appeal.

*Terming the complainants 'victims' is prejudicial, and this blog is presumably written by a legal professional!

[Saffron]

This is a difficult one.
There is a maximum 4 day period during a woman's menstrual cycle where conception will probably take place. (I know that this varies, and this is a generalisation. I am not advocating unprotected sex) That's 4 days out of 28. I know perfectly well where in my cycle my "fertile" days are, and actually I will not have penetrative sex at all during that period, just in case. I do not want to get pregnant.
The lady in this case could not take the pill for medical reasons. Nor can I, but there ARE other methods of contraception. The IUD being the main one.
Furthermore, there are also methods of post-coital contraception....the morning after pill and having an IUD/coil fitted. The latter can be done up to 72
hours after sex.
I have to admit that I am not sure on the religious stance regarding the MApill or the IUD. However, as an agnostic, I firmly believe there is no excuse nowadays for an unwanted pregnancy. We have a plethora of contraceptives at our disposal; should the worst happens we also have some emergency procedures available to us, providing we act quickly enough.
I have to admit that I would be mightily p1ssed off if I had asked a partner not to ejaculate inside me and he went ahead and did it anyway. In fact I'd be furious.
However, this has happened to me before (in my wild youth!) The difference was that the man was very apologetic and embarrassed. He offered to accompany me to the clinic to get the meds. (We were at the start of a long-term relationship)
So, I don't know how to call this.
(apologies to all if this is Too Much Information from me!)

[Izzy]

It is a really strange case - in the 2nd link it speaks about the violence in the relationship and him admitting to it in email, so I can understand why they thought they had a case against him .

I do worry though that it might set a precedence for other cases to be charged..

[Rights Fighter]

Here's the real story. What a nasty piece of work that man is...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/945.html