Girl duped by man who was actually a woman..
Discussion
victim said:
Speaking in court, the victim said: “It may look ridiculous, I had no idea, I was desperate for love. I wasn’t closing my eyes to what was happening, I wouldn’t have gone along with it.”
Really, she was wearing a blindfold?victim said:
She told police officers in interview: “Something just didn’t feel right, so I sat up on the bed. Something in my mind said pull it (the blindfold) off, pull it off.
“I pulled it off and Gayle was standing their with a strap-on prosthetic penis. I just couldn’t believe it.”
And the jury belived this?“I pulled it off and Gayle was standing their with a strap-on prosthetic penis. I just couldn’t believe it.”
La Liga said:
The sentence is in-line with three not-guilty convictions for sexual assault which are probably the highest category of seriousness and culpability. I think people are letting the fact they judge the scenario implausible detract from the seriousness.
It's not just assault it's physical insertion which is where it goes right st the top end of punishment (I assume this is the same if a man was raped by another man or a lady raped a man with a strap on like the lady in question in this thread)La Liga said:
The sentence is in-line with three not-guilty convictions for sexual assault which are probably the highest category of seriousness and culpability. I think people are letting the fact they judge the scenario implausible detract from the seriousness.
What's a "not-guilty conviction"?Zod said:
What's a "not-guilty conviction"?
Presumably he/she means when the defendant decided to plead "not guilty" throughout the entire trial, but was then found guilty by the jury. A sentence can be reduced by up to a third if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.The Judge summed up and seems to have said how traumatic this was for the victim, and yet makes no mention of her absolutely mind bending naiivity or stupidity, call it what you will. I thought at first this woman maybe a few sausage rolls short of a picnic, but they seemed to have met at University FFS, so she surely has a modicum of intelligence?
I cannot help but feel that the victim played some part in this getting as far as it did, she surely has to shoulder some of the blame, it's the most ridiculous chain of events Ive ever heard. If it was in portrayed in a movie, it would be a stupid as that one with George Clooney that's a bit like Roadhouse, and then they all turn into f
king vampires.
Mind boggling
I cannot help but feel that the victim played some part in this getting as far as it did, she surely has to shoulder some of the blame, it's the most ridiculous chain of events Ive ever heard. If it was in portrayed in a movie, it would be a stupid as that one with George Clooney that's a bit like Roadhouse, and then they all turn into f
king vampires. Mind boggling
Matt100HP said:
Zod said:
What's a "not-guilty conviction"?
Presumably he/she means when the defendant decided to plead "not guilty" throughout the entire trial, but was then found guilty by the jury. A sentence can be reduced by up to a third if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.Zod said:
Matt100HP said:
Zod said:
What's a "not-guilty conviction"?
Presumably he/she means when the defendant decided to plead "not guilty" throughout the entire trial, but was then found guilty by the jury. A sentence can be reduced by up to a third if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.The sentence doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Unless you compare it with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11063...
4 years for grooming and sexually assaulting a 12 year old, released after 9 months.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11063...
4 years for grooming and sexually assaulting a 12 year old, released after 9 months.
La Liga said:
qube_TA said:
You get men claiming to be raped via a woman, and not those with strap-ons.
The wording is this: S.1 SOA 2003 said:
1: Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
The word "he" is often gender-neutral in criminal law, but it's not here. (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
qube_TA said:
So you're saying it's fraud?
She had a voluntary sexual relationship with someone she believed to be male, which turned out not to be, in these days of enlightened GLBT rights having friskies with a woman who turns out to have a Y chromosome isn't going to stack up as an assault.
I think we're using language slightly differently. When I hear the word "fraud", I am thinking criminal fraud as in the fraud act 2006. In the context of sexual offending, she has been deceived regarding the consent. She had a voluntary sexual relationship with someone she believed to be male, which turned out not to be, in these days of enlightened GLBT rights having friskies with a woman who turns out to have a Y chromosome isn't going to stack up as an assault.
I think we essentially mean the same thing. She has been deceived, but that's 'merely' the basis for the act to become a crime. Without the act, the 'fraud' / deception doesn't mean anything.
I've quoted Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 twice in the thread to show a similar set of circumstances resulted in a conviction.
PurpleTurtle said:
I just cannot get my head round the 'victim' having sex with her TEN TIMES and not knowing is was a strap-on!? Utterly ridiculous. The mind truly boggles.
Even though Ms Newland clearly has a number of issues, I feel very sorry for her, locking her up for 8yrs isn't going to help.
Exactly this. I was discussing it with the wife last night you would know after the first time never mind 10 times! Did the jury not realise this? Even though Ms Newland clearly has a number of issues, I feel very sorry for her, locking her up for 8yrs isn't going to help.
AJS- said:
The sentence doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Unless you compare it with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11063...
4 years for grooming and sexually assaulting a 12 year old, released after 9 months.
This sort of thing make my blood boilhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11063...
4 years for grooming and sexually assaulting a 12 year old, released after 9 months.
I recall a thread sometime this year about a new story in the US. The story went that Dad coming home from work opens front door of his house to find a man raping his young son in the living room. He called the police and told them to send an Ambulance "he is going to need one there is going to be a lot of blood" and then beat him very hard. Charges in against the father thrown out of court he was protecting his son not premeditated instead heat of the moment. I'm fairly sure that in the UK that Dad would end up with a longer prison sentence than the rapist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff