Help How can u prove consent

[Potnoodle]

Is there anyway to prove consent

[jittery]

Hi

Is there anyway to prove consent

Hi potnoodle. As I understand it, we don't have to prove consent, we have to prove that in the situation we were in, we had a reasonable belief that there was consent.
In my case I have a hip problem and had to ask my "victim" to open her legs wider twice to enable penetration to take place. She had plenty of time to say "no" which the lying toad claims she did but of course didn't. While we were having sex she was moving her own hips to maximise her pleasure- I get the feeling she's been coached what to say, so I presume she'll say she was trying to throw me off.
a). I'm 51 years old: at my age I know the difference.
b). She's half an inch shorter than me and 8 pounds heavier: I'm sure if she'd wanted to throw me off she could have had a damn good try and I would have recognised it as such.

If things go further I will obviously say that I had to ask her to open her legs: she did, how am I to read that? She claims I ripped her trousers off and forced her down onto the bed: we spent the night in her bed and from a prone position with my bad hip I would find such an act physically impossible, I am simply not mobile enough. There are other things, but I won't bore you. Of course the trouble is that at the end of the day it is purely my word against hers, so if things do go further it will boil down to who the jury finds most believable.
All the best, hope this helps. Stay strong!
J

[Potnoodle]

Yeah thanks j just trying to get my head round everything it just so hard when you know u have not done anything wrong and u just want that one thing what prove what she said is a lie

[Rights Fighter]

Jittery - you have medical evidence relating to your hip? Have you had to have physio or injections? that could help your defence

[jittery]

hi

Yeah thanks j just trying to get my head round everything it just so hard when you know u have not done anything wrong and u just want that one thing what prove what she said is a lie

I agree, it is difficult, but at the end of the day what kind of an impression they make in court, i.e. whether they will make compelling witnesses or not will be taken into account; and is there any public interest ( I'm guessing here they mean are you an habitual criminal or a danger to society ) will also be taken into account. Police and court officials have ways of tripping liars up, so it will depend on the jury if things go that far.
Hopefully in this case if things do go this far we would have 12 George Fraser MacDonalds on the bench ( not known for his pro-feminist views), if on the other hand the jury link arms and start singing "We are women we are strong" then the outlook may not be so good. Here's hoping for a jury of chauvenist pigs (never thought I'd hear myself say the words!). All the best and stay strong!
J

[jittery]

Hi

Jittery - you have medical evidence relating to your hip? Have you had to have physio or injections? that could help your defence

Hi Rights Fighter,
Not yet, but I do have 12 months of requesting less work (price £30 a job) losing £150 a week in the process. I did go to the doctors and was told to go back if it gets worse last year. Now I'm forced to do agency work in a warehouse, it has got significantly worse, so I shall be booking in for an Xray next week.
Thanks for the advice.
J

[Rights Fighter]

Ask for a referral to hospital now. You need to get the condition officially recorded asap. Did you get my PM?

[jittery]

Hi

Ask for a referral to hospital now. You need to get the condition officially recorded asap. Did you get my PM?

Thanks rights fighter I will, what do you mean when you say a PM?

[Casehardened]

Thanks rights fighter I will, what do you mean when you say a PM?

PM = private message, if you click on the notifications tab on the top right of the screen you can view these.

[anonsteve]

consent vs burden of proof

Of course this will be see as naive, but you aren't supposed to prove consent (notwithstanding technical clarification above).

I believe I have reason to believe they have to prove lack of consent.

I know derp... Silly me..... But I thought the words "burden of proof" meant something.

[Casehardened]

You're absolutely right of course, the prosecution are supposed to prove their case, the 'innocent till proved guilty' thing, the guidelines that have been smudged are those which impede a case being brought to trial in the first place.

The only cases where implied consent, or lack of it, will not be an issue are those involving minors.

[anonsteve]

realistic vs principle

Sure. I guess in the real world, with the exception of the proverbial "jump from the bushes with a knife", and of course the age thing (which goes without saying) there would almost never be a successful prosecution if consent was assumed.

I think in these sort of cases (and I do not say this is right, just what I think happens) rape is distorted into the civil basis of "balance of probabilities". Perhaps there would be more "parity" if we were to reduce perjury to the same basis of proof-burdenity.

(burdenity is a word. I know, because I just used it)

I do not want to dissuade genuine victims, but convicting the innocent is the more horrific. Its a difficult balance, but without some kind of threat for falsity, you only encourage the revenge, the twisted, the tactical, the nasty, and the bull****tery.

[jittery]

hi both

Sure. I guess in the real world, with the exception of the proverbial "jump from the bushes with a knife", and of course the age thing (which goes without saying) there would almost never be a successful prosecution if consent was assumed.

I think in these sort of cases (and I do not say this is right, just what I think happens) rape is distorted into the civil basis of "balance of probabilities". Perhaps there would be more "parity" if we were to reduce perjury to the same basis of proof-burdenity.

(burdenity is a word. I know, because I just used it)

I do not want to dissuade genuine victims, but convicting the innocent is the more horrific. Its a difficult balance, but without some kind of threat for falsity, you only encourage the revenge, the twisted, the tactical, the nasty, and the bull****tery.

Ah, now I thought I had read that the process has shifted from the prosecution having to prove evidence that a rape has taken place to the defendant having to prove that he/she has reasonable belief that consent was given. Am I wrong in this? If so perhaps I must have misunderstood the DPPs motion and for what it's worth retract my previous opinion of her!

[anonsteve]

mea culpa

My fault, I think I may have distracted from the original brief. Burdenality was not the point of the original post. Mea culpa.

[Rights Fighter]

Ah, now I thought I had read that the process has shifted from the prosecution having to prove evidence that a rape has taken place to the defendant having to prove that he/she has reasonable belief that consent was given. Am I wrong in this? If so perhaps I must have misunderstood the DPPs motion and for what it's worth retract my previous opinion of her!

In "law" the burden of proof lies with the Crown. In reality it lies with the defence otherwise, there would be no need for trials.