Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
Is it vague? I thought it just automatically sided with the female. If both partners are hammered and she wakes up the next morning and say that she was raped then you are screwed basically.
|
Even more so because:
Quote:
|
s.75 of the 2003 act introduced presumptions. If these are present, it is presumed the victim did not consent, and the onus is then on the defendant to prove the victim did.
|
The presumptions are:
Quote:
The circumstances are that—
(a)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(b)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;
(c)the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;
(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
|
So basically, violence, threats of violence, kidnap, date-rape, disability and unconsciousness. The difficulty here is obviously with date-rape and unconsciousness.
lol at 'guilty until proven innocent'.
Threaded Mode