Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : News : Rape case collapses, High Court judge rules "drunken consent" is STILL consent

[Critic]

Article extract >> SOURCE : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm

A rape case has collapsed after a 21-year-old student said that she had been too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to have sex.
The woman had alleged she was raped by fellow student Ruairi Dougal in a hall of residence at Aberystwyth University.

But High Court judge Justice Roderick Evans directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict, on the basis that drunken consent is still consent.

Mr Dougal, 20, had told the Swansea court that the sex was consensual.

The woman said she passed out after drinking too much.

Swansea Crown Court heard on Wednesday, that the woman alleged that Mr Dougal, from County Donegal in the Republic of Ireland, had raped her in a corridor outside her room in the halls.

She told the court that she was sure she would not have consented, and if she had wanted sex she would have opened her flat door and taken the man into her bedroom.

But defence barrister Stephen Rees argued it was impossible for her to be sure she had not consented because she could not remember.

After she gave evidence, Huw Rees for the prosecution said he was abandoning the case.

Judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans then instructed the jury to find Mr Dougal not guilty.

During the case, the jury had heard how the female student drank vodkas before attending a party at the arts centre on the university's campus.

She became ill and a member of staff asked Mr Dougal, who was working as a security guard, to walk her home.

She told the court she could remember little else apart from lying on the corridor floor and briefly emerging from unconsciousness to be aware "that something was happening".

Drunken consent

The woman complained to police two days after the alleged attack, but it was not until police interviewed Mr Dougal that she was told that she had had full sexual intercourse, the court heard.

"The prosecution has taken stock, in light of the evidence revealed in cross examination," said Huw Rees.

"The question of consent is an essential part of the case. Drunken consent is still consent.

"She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution's case."

End extract <<

Also see :: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...468607,00.html


I know we ahd a thread on a related issue earlier in the week but this came close on its heels and could avhe far reaching implications for the way that similar cases are dealt with in the future.

Obviously, not everyone is happy with the ruling but what do you think of this specific type of incident??


Opinions?? Comments?~?

Critic,

[Slidey]

you cant say yes drunk, and then say no sober. it just doesnt work like that! if you cant control your actions, and they get you into trouble when you're off your face, then perhaps you need to be a bit more controlled..


'if id been sober, i wouldnt have done it there'

bit of a technicality, but i dont think you could argue justice would be served by finding the guy guilty after a comment like that.

[TomorrowHosting]

I agree with the judge. She gave complete consent, and it was her own fault she was drunk.

[Critic]

Originally Posted by TomorrowHosting

I agree with the judge. She gave complete consent, and it was her own fault she was drunk.

Well we just don't know about the first bit, and taht is where the problem/debate arises. Although i agree, unless we are dealing with some kind of "date rape" situation and then the verdict is far more clear cut and obvious, her "state of mind/well being" at the time is her responsibility.

If she was aware enough at the time and did consent, thenthis ruling is correct. However with it being her word against his and not knowing for certain what actually occurred from her perspective, generally it is an absolute legal quagmire and has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

If it were to be drunken consent, there cannot be any doubt or question as to her wishes IMO, in the affirmative for definite, otherwise it is rape.

Regardless of the ruling, you've gotta wonder about thsi guy, legally innocent but questions surround his character at the very least i'd say.


Critic,

[TomorrowHosting]

Sure, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a guy who tries to take advantage of a girl like that. What he did was shrewd an inapropriate, but it was still legal.

[Critic]

Yes, maybe put him on some kind of watch list or if he appears in court for a similar offence in the future, his past record in regard to this case should be made known to the jury.

He was supposed to be escorting her back to her room afterall, although i am inclined to agree with the judge on this one and that drunken people should take more responsibility for their actions, it still doesn't sit right with me this case, this scenario, his actions e.t.c.

Critic,

[IRCCo Jeff]

In the U.S. (most states at least, CA being one of the exceptions i'm aware of) when one becomes intoxicated he/she is consenting to become intoxicated and therefore accepting responsibility for his/her actions thereafter. As such, consent can still be rendered while intoxicated.

I personally do not have respect for someone who conciously drinks and does not take responsibility for their own actions or tries to pass the buck.

[GoTek-JP]

The woman complained to police two days after the alleged attack, but it was not until police interviewed Mr Dougal that she was told that she had had full sexual intercourse, the court heard.

Ouch, maybe that guy won in court but a girl not remembering the sex is not a good sign at all even while drunk.

[Lumix]

I agree that you have to take responsibility for your actions when you're drunk. But I also think what Mr Dougal did was despicable. Consent or not, he clearly took advantage of the young lady while carrying out his duties as a security guard for the collage. I would hope that the collage took disciplinary action against him.

[freak]

So, if I kill someone when I am drunk, I don't have to be responsible cause if I am not drunk, I would surely have not killed that guy? Doesn't make sense to me...

I think you have to take actions for what you did after you become drunk, if you know you can't, don't get drunk. Simple.

[porcupine]

Theres a reason people go to jail for drinking and driving, prime example. Its commonly recognized that you're responsible for knowing your limits in regards to alcohol, and that you're responsible for your actions should you exceed your limits. If she cant even remember whether or not she gave consent, she was obviously not drinking within her own personal limits, and can only hold herself responsible.

Remember, "Beer, helping ugly people have sex since 1869!"

[Joseph_M]

Critic - Innocent until proven guilty? As he was not found guilty in the trial, the record of this "accusation" has been expunged. otherwise I get a group of people, and each of us could accuse the Queen of rape in turn over a period of a year, and she'd be found "guilty" according to your idea.

I think that one of her "friends" could easily have taken her home, why ask a security guard?

1 in 3 girls in University Halls will be raped during their stay. Shocking figures really, but so many girls get drunk in the pubs & bars around the uni then can barely stand, I've come home from uni and seen people struggling to even make the step into the bus and talking incoherently, no doubt they can't remember any of it the next morning!

[JayC]

Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff

In the U.S. (most states at least, CA being one of the exceptions i'm aware of) when one becomes intoxicated he/she is consenting to become intoxicated and therefore accepting responsibility for his/her actions thereafter. As such, consent can still be rendered while intoxicated.

On the contrary, the situation is the U.S. is in general that a person who is intoxicated is not capable of giving consent. While it's usally not specified in the law, the precise language of which varies from state to state, state codes regarding rape generally read that a person is incapable of content if he or she is below the legal "age of consent," or is mentally disabled, mentally handicapped or physically helpless. Case law has extended that to include incapacitation due to intoxication.

The other test that would come into play would be that a "reasonable person" would be able to judge either that the victim's actions or words constituted a lack of consent, or that the victim was incapacitated. So having a couple of drinks wouldn't put this into play, but a victim "lying on the corridor floor and briefly emerging from unconsciousness" would almost certainly be found to have been incapable of offering consent in U.S. courts.

As is apparently the case in general in the U.K., which is why this story is newsworthy.

[DevilDog]

"She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution's case."

I'm surprised this ever went to trial to begin with.

This is a sad case of the folly of drinking to the point of blackout. It's kind of proverbial that bad things happen to you when you pass out.

Seems if the court ruled otherwise about "drunken consent" they might set a precedent that a person is not responsible for anything they did while intoxicated and open the door to whether or not murder or theft or DWI or a host of other crimes committed while intoxicated could be challenged on similar grounds that the person is not really responsible.

In this case the girl may not have given consent so that is particularly tragic if so. I have known alchoholics in my life who stated they were completely different people when in a blackout so it is entirely possible she fully consented and would think to herself later: "I would never do that...." We'll never know for sure but it is a great example to demonstrate to young people the danger of drinking with abandon as if such activity carries no consequences.

[2Grumpy]

How can you holler rape if you can't even remember if you said yes or no? If there were any witnesses who saw her try to say no, then the guy should get convicted but if it's merely "he said she said" it leaves a shadow of a doubt and that's enough to let him off. If there were NO shadow of doubt then off to jail he goes.

If this worked, then fellas would need to carry breathalyzers around with them "before we have sex please blow in this and sign this waiver" kinda ruins the mood...