A Change In The Law
PLAY HARD, WORK HARD
A Change In The Law
Justice
At the beginning of July, the Government announced a change in the law to ban men from claiming that fatal injuries inflicted on women were at her request during intercourse.
Following the death of 26-year-old Natalie Connolly at the hands of her boyfriend in 2016, a campaign to ban the ‘rough sex defence’ began. Connolly was reported to have suffered more than 40 injuries and was left bleeding before she was found in their Staffordshire home.
John Broadhurst claimed that Connolly, a mother of one, was injured during sexual activity which was consensual but fuelled by alcohol and drugs. Although the pathologist’s report had described bruises littering Connolly’s body, Broadhurst had claimed it was what she had requested, and that she liked being beaten. She, of course, was unable to defend whether this was true or not.
The murder charge was dropped, and despite pleading guilty on accounts of manslaughter, Broadhurst managed to persuade the prosecution that the beating Connolly had received was what she had wanted and requested. Instead of a life sentence, Broadhurst got only three years and eight months.
Although the ‘rough sex defence’ was formerly a provocation defence, it quickly became one exploited and used by many. Men who had killed women in this way continuously sought to blame the victim, using the provocation defence to lessen their charge from murder to manslaughter, claiming he was always the “victim” of their partner’s behaviour.
After Natalie Connolly’s death made national headlines, many began an online campaign, identifying at least 60 British women who had been killed in episodes of “consensual” sexual violence since 1972, and at least 18 women dying in the last five years.
The campaign, called “We Can’t Consent to This” found that 45% of these killings saw a claim that the woman’s injuries were sustained during a sex game “gone wrong”, which either resulted in a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, an acquittal, or the death not being investigated.
Defendants are not only using the defence more often, but before the law was changed, courts were becoming increasingly likely to believe this defence.
It’s a simple defence, of course. How can it be argued when the only other person who knew what had happened in detail is no longer able to give their account?
Natalie Connolly’s case wasn’t the first time the defence has been used in a high-profile case. The murder of 22-year-old Grace Millane, a young woman who was killed on a Tinder date in New Zealand in December of 2018, has also received much attention in the media.
Thankfully, the jury in Millane’s case didn’t buy the ‘rough sex defence’ and her murderer was sentenced to life imprisonment. Her family had to listen to intimate details of her private life read to the courtroom, details she was unable to refute.
The amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill are vital. Amendments to the Bill included making it clear that consent can no longer be used as a defence – especially in cases of serious violence and murder.
Thankfully, these amendments were accepted by the Government and will soon come into effect. No longer will families have to listen to the defence ‘it’s what she wanted’ when attempting to explain serious bodily harm. No longer will parents have to watch their child’s murderer walk away free-of-charge after having their child’s intimate private life spread across the papers and used as a weapon which they were unable to refute.
It could be argued by some that these instances were a number of ‘accidents’ when things have gone wrong. This may be the case for some of these murders, but many of these killers have a long history of perpetrating violence against women. For others, it had been a culmination of years of domestic abuse.
It’s hardly surprising that this defence has been used so often. Unfortunately, cases of non-consensual intercourse are difficult to prove – especially when non-consensual acts (such as violence, like choking or slapping) occur during otherwise consensual intercourse.
Under Chapter 3, Section 74 of the CPS Rape and Sexual Offences guidance, ‘Conditional Consent’ was the closest legal clause before the ‘rough sex defence’ was abolished. Chapter 3, Section 74 includes instances where consent was revoked when agreements were broken, but there is no clear ramification in this section of non-consensual acts of violence during otherwise consensual intercourse.
Which is why amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill and revoking the ‘rough sex defence’ is so important. Without these changes, many people would lose justice to these defences, which allow for no dispute, as the victim is no longer able to give their account.
It’s surprising that there has been a defence which was so widely used, where the victim was unable to dispute the lurid details about their private lives which would have been widely read to the jury. It’s strange that it’s taken so long for this defence to be reviewed; it’s a defence which allows for people to blame their victim for their own violence.
I’m glad the defence has received review and that the law has changed. But I can’t help but feel it’s come too late, with over 60 perpetrators in the UK having benefited from the ‘rough sex defence’.
By Tirion Davies