The truth about the government’s claims to have “ended the rough sex defence”

Following a lot of media coverage of this issue, I wrote a Twitter thread looking at the law behind it. I’ve reproduced it here in case it’s of interest.

Postscript: Unforgivably, I suggested in the thread that R v Brown was a Court of Appeal decision when, as every first-year law student knows, it was a House of Lords judgment (the predecessor to today’s Supreme Court). The link, should you wish to read the gory case in full, is here.

2 thoughts on “The truth about the government’s claims to have “ended the rough sex defence”

  1. I feel like part of the problem, in the public’s eyes, is that if you are ultimately convicted of manslaughter if feels like you ‘got away with it’, or like your only crime was carelessness.

    That doesn’t necessarily correspond with the legal reality, but I think it’s the case for some people.

    Some form of renaming offences could actually help here: something that doesn’t have the associations of carelessness/negligence that manslaughter does in the public mind.

    Jimifletch’s suggestion seems quite narrow, but ‘Death through Reckless Behaviour’, for example, might be an improvement. Perception matters.

  2. Good article but some of the screenshots of the twitter thread are too small to easily be read. It would probably have been better for you to have copied and pasted the text itself.

Leave a Reply