A British barrister has penned a disturbing suggestion that men accused of rape should be offered a complete defence if the victim was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
David Osborne’s most recent post on his legal blog contained a proposal that the UK’s criminal justice system be reformed so that women are unable to accuse men of rape if they are drunk or under the influence of drugs when the assault occurred.
The blog post was written in response to the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders’ direction to lawyers that women are legally unable to give consent in certain situations if they are under the influence.
Osborne suggests the opposite – that men should be acquitted on all rape allegations based on the fact that women should not be able to use alcohol or drugs as an “excuse”.
The post is titled “She was gagging for it” and reads:
“I have always found it distastefuland unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she was therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober.”
“Consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it rape.”
He then goes on to explain that he believes if the victim is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the accused should be automatically acquitted:
“I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was ‘raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence. End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation andcommon sense!”
Osborne then made even more disturbing comments to the Daily Mirror in an interview about the blog post. He said that women should be held responsible for rape if they have consumed alcohol and if they are wearing certain types of clothing. He said if women go out and get drunk and aren’t “covered up”, they should not be surprised if they get assaulted.
“You’ve seen the news sequences of girls who, regardless of the weather, have their backsides sticking out of their dresses and their tits hanging out of the same dress,” he said.
“Wandering around the streets, staggering around and then wondering at the end of all that why somebody has, if you like, taken advantage of them.”
He then went even further, saying if girls dressed differently fewer rapes would occur: “I tell you what would drop the rape statistics would be if girls covered up, dressed appropriately and stopped drinking themselves legless.”
He also said he believes rape cases are biased towards the victim and unfairly place the onus on the accused.
“The whole thing is over slanted infavour of drunken victims and against lads who chance their arm. Why should the responsibility for making these decisions be placed upon the bloke?”
Perhaps because the onus not to rape or assault another person ought to be greater than the onus on that person to avoid being raped?
In any case the legal community has issued a resounding response to this question: Because it’s the law.
“The justice system exists to punish and deter perpetrators. The guy is a barrister and there’s no way he doesn’t know all this,” said Sarah Green, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition.
“It is ridiculous. He is suggesting the opposite of the law.”
Rape Crisis England and Wales spokeswoman Katie Russell also said his comments show a troubling misunderstanding of very basic legal principles.
“Through his unwillingness and inability to grasp the simple legal principle that consent must be freely and fully given by someone with the capacity to do so, he has merely illustrated the desperate ongoing need for measures to improve the criminal justice system for sexual violence survivors,” she said.
Apart from contradicting foundational tenants of Britain’s criminal justice system, members of the legal community have also said it is disturbing that such a successful barrister would hold such deeply misogynistic views.
“It is outrageous and depressing that someone practising law in the 21st century should be so unabashed about airing such baldly misogynistic and victim-blaming views,” Russell said.
“We’ve moved beyond putting restrictions on women’s movement and behaviour. We need to talk about men not raping women, not women preventing rape,” said Green.