Scott Kuggeleijn sex trial



  • Sadly this is another she says he says, too much booze case. Although these cases can often be difficult to prosecute. There are some pointers which look favourably for the victim and her case. Especially with Kuggeleijn admitting "He was pretty shocked ... [he said] 'I know I was persistent but I didn't rape her' and that she said no a few times in the night and he rolled away and then they woke up and she didn't say 'no' so he thought it was okay." http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11682432.
    A witness in the rape trial of a Northern District's cricketer has been grilled over why he has changed aspects of his statement around what the accused has told him.
    But the witness, who has known fast bowler Scott Kuggeleijn for most of his life, says what he originally told police was simply "a mistake" or it must have been "misinterpreted" by the police officer who made his statement after the alleged incident in May last year.
    Kuggeleijn is on trial in the Hamilton District Court this week defending one charge of rape.
    Taking to the stand yesterday was the man who held the party at his Silverdale house that night.
    When questioned about the events before, during and after, the alleged rape, by Crown prosecutor Jacinda Foster, the witness said Kuggeleijn went to his house after being asked to leave the complainant's flat.
    "He just said that it was really weird, 'That I had sex with her and she left to go get a drink and [flatmate] came down and wanted me to leave'. He didn't know what was going on. He was confused," the witness said.
    Foster then asked him why in his police statement he was quoted as saying the cricketer had said the complainant had "left the room crying".
    "Can you tell us the difference between your statement of June 13 and what you're telling the jury today?" Foster asked the witness.
    "The reason is either it was my mistake or things got misinterpreted with the policeman writing it. The more I thought about it the more things start to come to me and I'm sitting here today telling the truth."
    The witness was also called into question by Foster about what the complainant told him when she and her friends visited him hours after the alleged incident.
    Continued below.
    Related Content
    Northern Districts cricketer's rape trial: Court hears how woman met accused
    Northern Districts cricketer's trial: Complainant tells court she has lost friends over process
    He told Foster the complainant said "she said 'no' and that he stopped [trying during the night] and then they woke up and when I asked her 'did you say no?', then she said 'no, I felt like I didn't have a choice'."
    "They were the words she used?" Foster asked.
    "100 per cent," the witness replied.
    In his original statement the witness told police that he asked her "why didn't she say no and she said she felt like she didn't have a choice" but to have sex with him.
    The witness - who spoke to police about changes to his statement on Tuesday night and yesterday morning - told the court he spoke to Kuggeleijn again the night of the alleged rape, telling him what the girls had said.
    "He was pretty shocked ... [he said] 'I know I was persistent but I didn't rape her' and that she said no a few times in the night and he rolled away and then they woke up and she didn't say 'no' so he thought it was okay."
    Earlier, a flatmate of the alleged victim says she came bursting into her bedroom, struggling to breath and crying uncontrollably just after the incident's alleged to have happened.
    "I noticed she was upset and I jumped up and gave [alleged victim] a hug ... she was crying a lot and was struggling to breath ... [she said] she didn't want to but he kept trying."
    After she'd calmed down the alleged victim managed to tell the flatmate that she "didn't want to [have sex] but I couldn't push him off".



  • Let me get this correct: They stayed in the same bed? He pressured her to have sex before they went to sleep, she repeatedly said no. Then in the morning he rolls over with a stiffy and tries it on again, she acquiesces and now it's come to this?



  • But the issue is that he admitted he was told no, and never received any consent. But closing statements are expected tomorrow, so will probably see a verdict either late tomorrow, or Friday. This could be a massive wake up call for men in professional sport (any young men really), who are well known for throwing their hips into everything and anything on Saturday nights.





  • I find it strange that she didn't call out for help in a crowded house whilst she was being allegedly raped.



  • I find it strange that she didn't call out for help in a crowded house whilst she was being allegedly raped.

    Utter fear does that to a person. People freeze and can hardly breathe, let alone scream.
    If he threatened her, she wouldn't have screamed out of fear either.
    Be careful not to resort to victim blaming here.



  • Two people got on the piss and spent the night together. Who the fuck knows what actually happened. He said / she said based on hazy memories. Pretty tough one for the courts to sort out.



  • The major issue is the statements from witnesses saying he was told no a number of times. Witnesses who were told this by Kuggeleijn. So he is basically admitting he didn't have consent. It's like knocking at the door of someone you know, being told not today and walking in anyway.



  • bizaare conversation to have with your mates TBH...
     
    so did you score last night:
     
    Yeah bro
    Nah bro
     
    But the conversations has kinda gone - yeah mate I scored, but man I had to work on her, she said no loads, but eventually gave in.



  • Utter fear does that to a person. People freeze and can hardly breathe, let alone scream.
    If he threatened her, she wouldn't have screamed out of fear either.
    Be careful not to resort to victim blaming here.

    You need to be careful assuming there is a victim. 
     
    As for utter fear.... was she afraid of physical violence if she didnt have sex or had called for help? What evidence has been presented to support that? Are you or the prosecution suggesting that she was so scared that she was struck mute? Despite knowing that help and a solution to the threat was one good yell away?



  • saw this on FB, assume it relates to this case?

    I'm gunna start going home with random very drunk guys and stealing all of their shit. Everything they own. It won't be my fault though... they were drunk. They... should have known better. I'll get away with it 90% of the time but then when one brave man takes me to court over it, I'll argue that I wasn't sure if he meant it when he said 'no don't steal my Audi.' I just wasn't sure if he meant it. I said 'Can I please steal your Gucci watch?' He said 'no' but I just wasn't sure if he meant it. He was drunk.He brought this on himself. You should have seen how he was dressed at the club, expensive shirts and shoes. What kind of message is he sending with that!? I thought he wanted me to come and steal all of his shit. He was asking for it. When he said 'no' to me taking everything he owned I just didn't know if he meant it. 'No' isn't objective enough, it could mean anything.



  • Hypothetically speaking, trying to talk a girl who's saying no into having sex is a high risk manoeuvre. If she says no best to bug out and move on



  • Hypothetically speaking, trying to talk a girl who's saying no into having sex is a high risk manoeuvre. If she says no best to bug out and move on

    That's what I'd do if I was ever rejected. Assuming I didn't die of shock.



  • I've deleted half of this thread
     
    For matters before the court, please provide a source if you are stating something as a fact
     
    It is not 'irrelevant' and no I will not 'google it myself'. TSF can be liable for what is posted here so we will err on the side of caution



  • Why were they sleeping in the same bed?



  • That's what I'd do if I was ever rejected. Assuming I didn't die of shock.

    What's with all the food stains?  Breakfast in Bed?



  • Why were they sleeping in the same bed?

    Why does that matter?



  • Why does that matter?

    Yes, why would that little detail have any significance in a rape case.
    I'm not judging either of the parties I'm just wondering why they were sleeping in the same bed.



  • That's the thing aye, doesn't matter if she wanted to fool a bit, the minute she says no that's game over...



  • Yes, why would that little detail have any significance in a rape case.
    I'm not judging either of the parties I'm just wondering why they were sleeping in the same bed.

    I am not sure why they shouldnt?



  • That's the thing aye, doesn't matter if she wanted to fool a bit, the minute she says no that's game over...

    Exactly. If she says no, don't sleep in the same bed as her. Lying in bed with a raging boner and the woman you're lusting after just a few centimetres away is never a good thing.



  • I've had a few occasions like that, I asked, she said no, I turned over and went to sleep...
     
    Ended up at a house due to mate shagging the friend, other bird was keen on me, just not on sex straight away..
     
    another one I woke in the morning and went to sneak out only to realise I had no idea where I was...wasnt much fun.



  • People freeze up under traumatic situations. Fight or flight is a myth, for most people its freeze & be unable to do shit.
     



  • I'm always a little bit disappointed (actually, a lot disappointed) when it comes to social media and rape cases. Particularly when it comes to high profile sportsmen, and the general belief that the girl was probably asking for it because who wouldn't want to have sex with a guy who throws a ball around for a living. 
     
    Having read Duluth's post earlier, and taking that in, I'll just talk very broadly and background it with the fact that I know nothing about the current case. other than the media, and I'm not talking about that in particular, just addressing points that have been raised. 
     
    I've been first on the scene, held (and closed) files, and taken through to court a fair number of rape, sexual assault, or indecency complaints. Unfortunately, all sexual assault cases are not all as simple as "random girl walking home dragged into the bushes by complete stranger and DNA found at the scene". They can be dark and murky affairs, often influenced by alcohol, drugs and emotions. Give me an assault file over a sexual assault file any day. 
     
    Asking why a victim didn't cry out for help is like asking why a victim didn't close her legs to stop penetration. It's not just fear, it's thoughts about whether they have put themselves in that situation, whether they have asked for it by wearing a short skirt or flirting (some parts of society still have that mentality), it's fear about what their flatmates might say. Put quite simply, asking why a victim didn't cry out, is like asking why a domestic violence victim doesn't tell their friends where the bruises came from, or why a sexual abuse victim doesn't tell their family that their uncle is abusing them. Put even further into perspective, when the alleged offender is a professional sportsman, can you begin to imagine how much that might skew the balance of power? Internet messageboards will be flooded with accusations of "regrettable sex" or "she was well up for it". In fact, I've seen them a number of times on TSF with various cases in the past. I think us imagining that we'd cry out while being raped is like how we all like to think we'd be a hero in a dangerous situation, but that's not always the case. Until you're in those shoes, you have no idea. 
     
    As I said, I don't know anything about this case other than what I read in the media, I have no idea which version of the story is more correct (both may have genuinely believed what they told the jury). But I'll ask this - would you voluntarily stand up in front of 12 strangers, and the national media, and tell them about a sexual experience you had? We did adult sexual assault training at work a few years back, and the trainer asked me to stand up and tell the room about my last sexual experience. Talk about fucken uncomfortable. I think I made a joke about, "it was dark and I was all alone". But I couldn't imagine what it would be like to get up in front of a jury and tell them about something intensely personal and private, and then know that it is gonna be all over the media, with people throwing accusations and casting doubt from all angles. 
     
    Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise. There are some statistics about how only 2 - 5 percent of sexual assaults will be reported, and only a fraction of those will ever get a conviction. That means that a sexual assault victim has something like a 1-2% chance of ever seeing justice done. 
     
    In the past, (being a happily married man now) if it had got to the point where a girl said she wasn't keen, I imagine I would have just rolled over and gone to sleep? If you get to the point where you feel that you're being "insistent" , are you any better than an ex-car salesman, or a telemarketer who is pushing something onto someone that they clearly don't want? When that something is sexual intercourse, you are treading a very, very fine line. 
     
    Food for thought anyway. I have no idea how this case will play out, but it's not as black and white as we in our armchairs might imagine...



  • Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise. There are some statistics about how only 2 - 5 percent of sexual assaults will be reported, and only a fraction of those will ever get a conviction. That means that a sexual assault victim has something like a 1-2% chance of ever seeing justice done.

    Can you expand on your belief that all accusations of rape should be seen as genuine? Do you mean they should be taken seriously? Or the alleged victim believed until proven otherwise?
     
    Because I have serious issues with the latter... and will happily debate it.
     
    And do you have a source for claim that only 2-5% of sexual assaults are reported? This area is full of misleading studies and blatantly dishonest claims. Another popular one is the  the amount of females that will be a victim of sexual assault. In that case it is a case of 'if a lie is repeated enough it becomes the truth'. I will happily provide more information on this.
     
    As for  your assertion that if 2-5% of rape cases are prosecuted, that does not mean only 1-3% see justice.. unless you equate justice being done with a conviction... which to be honest does seem to be the gist of that part of your post. If you trust your judicial system, then if 2-5% (A figure I would like to see verified) are prosecuted then 2-5% see justice done, a jury finding someone innocent is still justice done.



  • Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise.

    On your first point above, one of the reasons here in Queensland the vast majority of people who make false rape complaints are not prosecuted is because it is believed the prosecution of these people will deter genuine victims from making complaints. The fear of getting prosecuted if you are not believed.
     
    I don't know how things work in the NZ police, but I suspect things would be very similar to over here. The first thing you do as a cop when receiving any complaint is ask yourself "Did this really happen?" Rape/sexual complaints are no different. When I hand over sexual complaint reports to the coffee drinking 'Cant I'm Busy' crowd the first question I always seem to get is "So is this a load of crap or what?" It sounds bloody wrong to start off an investigation with that attitude but that attitude has come from somewhere. Maybe the attitude has evolved because other police have had similar experiences to me and Mrs Crazy Horse (she is also a cop) - with 25 years front line experience between us we have been involved in very few sexual assault/rape cases that have made it to court. The vast majority end up going nowhere. Some are blatantly false, some are 'he said, she said' and some are withdrawn by the victim for reasons she will only know.
     
    I don't have any internet links, but research conducted by a Charles McDowell and recorded in the Forensic Science Digest Vol 11, No 4 December 1985, suggests that up to 60% of rape complaints are false. The research started by reviewing 556 cases of alleged rape in the US airforce between certain times. 27% of the women eventually admitted they had lied. The airforce then got three independent reviewers to review all 556 cases. They identified 25 criteria common to all the cases in which the women admitted they lied and made comparisons to the other rape cases. Upon reviewing all the cases the reviewers concluded 60% of the rape complaints were false. The reviewers all worked independently of each other and it is only the individual cases in which all three reviewers concluded were false that are included in the 60% figure.
     
    It was then thought the results may be peculiar to the airforce so a review was conducted of rape complaints in major police forces throughout the USA. The review returned the same results. 60% of rape complaints were likely to be false. Politicians feared a backlash so pressure was applied and eventually the results were published leaving out the exact police jurisdictions that were reviewed.
     
    I don't know how competent the research was but that to me that was interesting. If the truthfulness of rape allegations can be questioned, what about other allegations? Domestic Violence is an issue that springs to mind that all is not what we are led to believe, but that is another topic.



  • On your first point above, one of the reasons here in Queensland the vast majority of people who make false rape complaints are not prosecuted is because it is believed the prosecution of these people will deter genuine victims from making complaints. The fear of getting prosecuted if you are not believed.
     
    I don't know how things work in the NZ police, but I suspect things would be very similar to over here. The first thing you do as a cop when receiving any complaint is ask yourself "Did this really happen?" Rape/sexual complaints are no different. When I hand over sexual complaint reports to the coffee drinking 'Cant I'm Busy' crowd the first question I always seem to get is "So is this a load of crap or what?" It sounds bloody wrong to start off an investigation with that attitude but that attitude has come from somewhere. Maybe the attitude has evolved because other police have had similar experiences to me and Mrs Crazy Horse (she is also a cop) - with 25 years front line experience between us we have been involved in very few sexual assault/rape cases that have made it to court. The vast majority end up going nowhere. Some are blatantly false, some are 'he said, she said' and some are withdrawn by the victim for reasons she will only know.
     
    I don't have any internet links, but research conducted by a Charles McDowell and recorded in the Forensic Science Digest Vol 11, No 4 December 1985, suggests that up to 60% of rape complaints are false. The research started by reviewing 556 cases of alleged rape in the US airforce between certain times. 27% of the women eventually admitted they had lied. The airforce then got three independent reviewers to review all 556 cases. They identified 25 criteria common to all the cases in which the women admitted they lied and made comparisons to the other rape cases. Upon reviewing all the cases the reviewers concluded 60% of the rape complaints were false. The reviewers all worked independently of each other and it is only the individual cases in which all three reviewers concluded were false that are included in the 60% figure.
     
    It was then thought the results may be peculiar to the airforce so a review was conducted of rape complaints in major police forces throughout the USA. The review returned the same results. 60% of rape complaints were likely to be false. Politicians feared a backlash so pressure was applied and eventually the results were published leaving out the exact police jurisdictions that were reviewed.
     
    I don't know how competent the research was but that to me that was interesting. If the truthfulness of rape allegations can be questioned, what about other allegations? Domestic Violence is an issue that springs to mind that all is not what we are led to believe, but that is another topic.

    What a great post, love to see actual reports being quoted. As you say these studies can and should be critiqued, but at least it actually has a basis to start with.... rather than vague references to studies that may or may not exist and may or may not have been completely misrepresented to show men in as evil a light as possible.



  • There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process.  Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.
     
    What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.



  • There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process.  Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.
     
    What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.

    although on the flipside, if you are likely to believe things blindly you are more likely to ignore facts that may not quite stack up.



  • There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process.  Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.
     
    What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.

    Agreed however... 
     
    I think the only default positions should be that all allegations are taken seriously whilst also preserving the innocent until proven guilty bedrock.



  • I'm not advocating that a default position should exist either way; let the facts determine what happened. Obviously, with experience an investigator will feel one side is more likely to be true. Much as when I watch news reports from family members and immediately think to myself "you're lying, you fucking did it". But then someone's fate isn't in my biased hands.



  • I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.
    Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.
     
    Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.



  • I've had a few occasions like that, I asked, she said no, I turned over and went to sleep...
     
    Ended up at a house due to mate shagging the friend, other bird was keen on me, just not on sex straight away..
     
    another one I woke in the morning and went to sneak out only to realise I had no idea where I was...wasnt much fun.

    That's called being married....



  • Can you expand on your belief that all accusations of rape should be seen as genuine? Do you mean they should be taken seriously? Or the alleged victim believed until proven otherwise?
     
    Because I have serious issues with the latter... and will happily debate it.
     
    And do you have a source for claim that only 2-5% of sexual assaults are reported? This area is full of misleading studies and blatantly dishonest claims. Another popular one is the  the amount of females that will be a victim of sexual assault. In that case it is a case of 'if a lie is repeated enough it becomes the truth'. I will happily provide more information on this.
     
    As for  your assertion that if 2-5% of rape cases are prosecuted, that does not mean only 1-3% see justice.. unless you equate justice being done with a conviction... which to be honest does seem to be the gist of that part of your post. If you trust your judicial system, then if 2-5% (A figure I would like to see verified) are prosecuted then 2-5% see justice done, a jury finding someone innocent is still justice done.

    Sorry, I wrote that post at about 2am, after a few beers, so I couldn't really be arsed scouring the internet for links. Those statistics were from memory, based on research online that I had done of other studies for a uni paper I wrote a few years back. They are probably 'give or take' a little bit, but my general gist was that in regards to sexual assault complaints, only a very minor percentage of them result in the conviction of the offender. There are a heap of reasons for that, but most commonly:
     
    Except for stranger rape cases (masked intruder, dragged into bushes in public place etc) they often involve the alleged victim and offender knowing one another, which makes things murky and puts strong social dynamics into play, particularly when it happens within groups of friends, so victims either don't want to go ahead with complaints, or else you get differing accounts, depending on which side of the net a witness is sitting on
    Alcohol is more often than not involved, which makes memories hazy and opens up a complainant to being slaughtered on the stand for being too drunk
    They may be historic, therefore evidence has been lost or the complainant just wants to have their complaint noted and then get some appropriate help (counselling etc)
    A victim often just wants to hear her story heard and have a medical check up to make sure she will have no ongoing problems (this is often the case in cases like the one before the court at the moment where it involves alcohol and he said/she said circumstances)
    They may involve a family member and the victim doesn't want to tear the family apart, or is getting a lot of pressure on them from the extended family to withdraw the complaint.
    Often they just don't want the trauma of having to relive everything 2 years down the track. We had some really cut and dry cases with great evidence, even to the point of confessions or admissions made by offenders that never made it to court, for that very reason. I could name at least 10 offenders that I know of from my time in the job, who would have received lengthy sentences had it gone to court, but the victim refused to go ahead with the case. So you multiply that out across all of NZ and it's a bit scary to think who is out there.
    As Crazy Horse said, and Mrs AWL is a cop as well so I speak from her experience too, that very few do make it to court for those reasons, so it's not like the Police are wandering around blindly believing victims at the expense of dragging a clearly innocent man through the mud just to make the victim feel better. Everything is subject to the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines, where something shouldn't be taken to court if there isn't a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. If cases are taken to court that clearly have no merit and everything goes pear-shaped, the offender is legally able to seek costs against the Crown, for expenses and damages which can get pretty expensive. Therefore, there is a robust process in place to ensure that only evidentially sufficient cases get before a jury. 
     
    To clarify, when I say all cases should be treated as genuine, I mean that in the past (80's, 90's), females would come in an make a complaint of rape and the salty old Detectives would take one look at it, or listen to the story and decide that the complainant was full of shit, or was drunk, scantily dressed and asking for it and that was that. So now, if a person comes in and makes a complaint, a full statement will still be taken, scene examinations will still take place, medical examinations of the complainant will still take place, even if the complainants story doesn't seem to stack up. Sexual assault files don't get closed down early just based on a hunch or an opinion. With the right investigation (phone records, talking to witnesses, looking at CCTV) a proper false complaint can be disproved really easily. I never went out of my way to take shit or cases with insufficient evidence to court, nor did any other cop I knew. There was very little point in doing that when there was a huge backlog of cases with evidential sufficiency sitting on my desk waiting to be investigated. 
     
    Only once these things have been investigated will the decision be made on whether it is likely a false complaint. That doesn't mean that the alleged offender will be blindly hauled over the coals, in fact, often we never even interviewed to the alleged offender if we could disprove the allegation by other means, because there was no point in upsetting someone unnecessarily if something clearly didn't happen. It might have been as simple as just going to see the guy, letting them know the gist of the complaint, but that we had disproved it, and asking them what their thoughts were on further action against the complainant in regards to false complaints. Absolutely the offenders were presumed innocent until guilty.
     
    Cops aren't man-hating feminists who want to string all men up by the balls, and me particularly so (as any of the BOP Mafia ferners who I met a few years back might be able to attest to), but treating a rape complainant genuinely and decently until there is proof that he/she is lying is just common sense I would have thought. That is quite different to presuming an offender is guilty, it's more that the complainant has genuine intentions for sitting in front of me and telling a complete stranger about her last sexual event . When I worked crime squad, in any given weekend shifts, we'd get up to half a dozen sexual assault complaints come across our desk. This got even worse with the advent of apps like Tinder, where we got quite a few "she flirted with me online so I assumed she was well up for it" type explanations. We had plenty of jobs where the boyfriend or significant other would drag the "victim" in to the station saying she had been raped by a guy she met in town, but when the door closed, she had just cheated on him, she didn't want to make a complaint and had never wanted to come into the station in the first place. More often than not, people who made the clearly false complaints of rape (and other crimes) were suffering a tonne of other problems as well, so prosecution wasn't ever taken up until they became repeat offenders. 
     
    So in short, sexual assault cases are a minefield, hence why I specialised in drugs and organised crime...



  • That's called being married....

    I said a few...



  • I said a few...

    Would have been more accurate if you'd said most...



  • I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.
    Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.
     
    Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.

    Absolutely, it's the cornerstone of the justice system, right? I've had friends who have had false allegations levelled at them for sexual assault and domestic violence and it was bloody unpleasant watching it all unfold. Thankfully, it was properly investigated and found to be false. 
     
    One of the biggest problems we used to face was that we'd go to speak to an alleged offender, (for any sort of offence, not just sexual) their lawyer would advise them not to make a statement, so we'd have to go with what we had in front of us, and the facts we had in putting together a prosecution case, or otherwise. Essentially you're having to make decisions with only 80% of the information available in front of you, because the other 20% doesn't want to speak to you. 
     
    We'd get to trial 18 months down the track and offender would take the stand, give a completely plausible and reliable account of what happened and they'd be rightly acquitted. The sticking point being that had they given that account to us when we asked to speak to them, it would have never made it to court.



  • I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.
    Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.
     
    Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.

    I'm not suggesting the legal system change from the presumption of innocence.



  • But the issue is that he admitted he was told no, and never received any consent. But closing statements are expected tomorrow, so will probably see a verdict either late tomorrow, or Friday. This could be a massive wake up call for men in professional sport (any young men really), who are well known for throwing their hips into everything and anything on Saturday nights.

    Consent is a legal minefield because it is about whether the alleged offender reasonably believed that they had consent. Consent given in the heat of the moment is still consent in the cold light of day. And the law dictates that if a victim withdraws that consent at any time (even mid-stride) it suddenly goes from consensual sex to sexual assault. There is historic case-law from the 70's that involved a case where a couple were having consensual sex and she asked him to stop about fifteen minutes in, he carried on for a short time and was ultimately convicted of rape.  
     
    The way the law currently sits is that consent given by a person who is really drunk is technically not really consent at all. In theory this is fine, because it's obviously intended to relate to people who are borderline comatose from alcohol.It also fits when it is a sober predator raping an intoxicated girl after a night out, but when both parties are really drunk, I struggle with who is and isn't giving consent? You only need to walk through any bar or club on a Saturday night to see dozens of couples hooking up after a few too many drinks, and everything looks happy. It turns it into a potential nightmare for young men who are equally as drunk, believe consent, but then have accusations levelled at them that their "partner" was too drunk to legally give consent. 
     
    The pic below isn't from New Zealand, but it's in theory consistent with the New Zealand law as it stands



  • although doesn't it apply for her too? Obviously rape of a man is not really seen that often, but....


Log in to reply