Perverts to get more time in jail for 'rough sex' killings - our response

As announced in a Daily Mail op ed today, the Secretary of State for Justice intends to increase the sentences of men who kill women in abusive, degrading or dangerous sexual violence: ‘rough sex’.

Although the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021 clarified that you cannot consent to serious harm (and so death), there was still a possibility that men could convince a judge in sentencing that the violence was consensual. This possibility seemed to be exploited by a series of men convicted of terrible violence but who received only short sentences for manslaughter. Clare Wade KC note this issue in her review of Domestic Homicide Sentencing.

Most recently we saw this in the case of Sophie Moss, a mum of two young children, who was killed in a sustained strangulation assault by an occasional sexual partner. He received a sentence of 4 years and 8 months, after killing Sophie in what the Court of Appeal judge called “a risky sexual practice”. This was despite his wife telling police that he would strangle her unbidden, and the level of violence he used against Sophie leaving his hands hurting. We were unable to have his sentence increased when we attempted to intervene in November 2021, and we understand he has already been released from prison.

We understand the Government’s change will be achieved as an ‘aggravating factor’ in sentencing, which requires judges to add between 4 and 6 years to a sentence.

We wait to see the full detail but this is a very welcome step forward in ensuring these violent offenders do not get away with terrible fatal assaults on women and girls. There is still more to do on ensuring that the many women in the UK who have suffered non fatal violence in sex see their cases prosecuted, and that we crack down on the ultraviolent porn that is radicalising so many men into terrible assaults on women. And we must not allow abusive men’s claims that ‘choking’ - strangulation - is just a sex act: this is an act of deliberate, intimate harm against women and we should not be coerced into pretending otherwise.

Notes:

We Can’t Consent to This campaigns in opposition to violence against women, including the use of ‘rough sex’ claims to evade justice.

In 2020 we secured a clarification of the law that consent is no defence to serious harm (or death), in the Domestic Abuse Act. Since then, Northern Ireland has also introduced change. Scotland’s Law Commission is considering whether a change should be made to the crime of homicide.

We know of more than 60 women killed and many more injured in violence claimed to be consensual. See our 2020 research here on the prevalence of these claims in criminal justice.

However many, many more women are impacted by this violence, and we estimate 2 million UK women may have experienced unwanted “choking” or strangulation in til then consensual sex: “I thought it was Normal, 2021”

Choking - aka strangulation - causes unconsciousness in as little as 4 seconds, indicating brain injury. This act causes a large range of harms including stroke, miscarriage, and long term brain injury.

For further comment use our Media contact form

A survey on porn and an update on the campaign.

Help us respond to the Government in our survey

We’re relieved that the Government is facing up to the impacts of porn on society, and we want your help in responding to their review of the industry and the law.

Our sister think tank, The Other Half, has been pushing for a review of the industry and is collecting responses from you to shape our response.

You can see how porn has impacted women’s experiences of violence in sex and views on relationships, and in criminal justice in our research briefings, as well as the Children’s Commissioner’s view of the harms caused to young people and The Other Half’s summary of the research on the harms the industry brings.

Please tell us about the impacts you’ve seen, and do share this survey with your networks.

 Share Your Thoughts Now 

Other news:

The Sentencing Council have consulted on an increase to the sentencing for ‘sexually motivated’ manslaughter

After we pushed for further change in the wake of the trial of Sam Pybus in November 2021, Laura Farris MP proposed a change to the sentencing for manslaughter so that ‘sexually motivated’ fatal violence would be more severely punished. The sentencing Council held a consultation late last year and we await further news of whether this will go ahead: we think this is a good thing if it does. Appallingly, Sam Pybus has already been released from his sentence for killing Sophie Moss in 2021.

Want more feminist campaigning and policy in 2024?

Sign up for updates from our new sister think tank, The Other Half, for policy on criminal justice, motherhood, work and more.

WCCTT and CWJ statement on Sam Pybus Court of Appeal Judgement

Statement: Sam Pybus Court Of Appeal Judgment

Women’s groups appalled at judgment of Court of Appeal and call for further overhaul of the law and criminal justice practice in relation to strangulation and so called “rough sex” cases.

Commenting post judgment - 
 
Fiona Mackenzie WCCTT stated:
“The AG was right to try to argue that there was an obviously seriously harmful or fatal outcome to the strangulation. It would be ‘obvious to any reasonable person’ that she was unconscious, and that this would be followed by death. This was a desperately serious and sustained assault, of a vulnerable woman, by an intimate partner.

We were horrified to see the court accept Pybus’ claim that Sophie had consented, and was a willing participant, in what Lady Macur called a ‘risky sexual practice’, despite this never being tested in court, and despite this being strongly refuted by Sophie’s former long-term partner and by Sam Pybus’ ex-wife.

We attempted with CWJ to intervene in the appeal – providing evidence that strangulation is a core part of domestic and sexual abuse, and that claims of ‘consent’ to strangulation were too easily being accepted by courts in giving lighter sentences and lesser charges.

This was rejected by Lady Macur who agreed with Pybus’ defence team that Sophie’s strangulation was consensual and so our evidence did not apply.
This could not be clearer case to show that the law (what it says and how it works) must change. Sophie Moss deserves better, and parliament must return to this."
 
Harriet Wistrich director CWJ added

“Unfortunately the AG was bound to accept the case as presented by the prosecutor in the lower court and in particular that Sophie Moss “enjoyed asphyxiation”. This is a form of victim blaming, suggesting that she was partly culpable for her own death. The evidence is based on the account given by the perpetrator and by one other man who also used her for sex and contradicted by her longer-term ex-partner and father of her children.

The deceased of course could not give her own account. Even if she had consented to being strangled on previous occasions, it is pure speculation to suggest she had consented on this occasion.

We believe in addition to reviewing the law, there needs to be a change in approach to the prosecution of such cases so that a proper review of surrounding all evidence is taken into account before conceding the Defendant’s account. 

This case also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of domestic abuse and of violent male offending.”
 

The horrifying harms of choking - new research

You’ll know that We Can’t Consent To This are extremely down on the normalisation of violence against women, particularly ‘choking’. The idea that there is ‘safe’ strangulation not only causes real life harm to women, but has also helped the men who try to use ‘rough sex’ claims: if strangulation is safe and what she wanted, how was he to know she’d be harmed or killed?

In case you’re not convinced, we’d like to share a sobering new piece of research on the damage caused by non-fatal strangulation. The researchers (Bichard, Byrne, Saville & Coetzer, 2020) have summarised this research for us to share with you.

Although it is common for strangulation to leave no visible signs of injury, this research sets out the terrible harm suffered by victims of non-fatal strangulation, with the onset of symptoms sometimes delayed by days or weeks. Harms can include stroke, cardiac arrest, miscarriage, incontinence, seizures, paralysis, speech disorders, and other forms of long term brain injury.

We already knew the potential injury from victims’ reports. But, for the first time, this synthesises the medical evidence in its terrifying and convincing entirety.

Research Summary - A Systematic Review of the neuropsychological outcomes of non-fatal strangulation in domestic and sexual violence

• Up to 10% of the population have experienced strangulation.

• This rises to over 50% of women subject to routine domestic abuse, and up to 20% of women who have been sexually assaulted.

• Strangulation is an overwhelmingly gendered crime: in a review of 300 forensic records in San Diego, 298 involved a man strangling a woman.

• if a woman has been strangled, the chance of her subsequently being murdered rises eightfold.

• Neck structures are alarmingly fragile: blocking the jugular vein can take less pressure than opening a can of Coke.

• Consciousness can be lost within as little as 4 seconds of arterial pressure. Losing consciousness indicates at the very least a mild brain injury. Consciousness was lost in between 17% and 38% of strangulation incidents identified.

• It is thought strangulation might be the second most common cause of stroke in women under 40.

• In terms of pathology, strangulation was shown to lead to dissection of the main neck arteries, blocking of blood flow to and from the brain, brain swelling, cardiac arrest, miscarriage, and stroke (which can be delayed by weeks).

• Neurological consequences of strangulation include: loss of consciousness (which indicates at least mild brain injury), paralysis, movement disorders, speech disorders, incontinence, and seizures.

• Cognitive consequences include: amnesia, and impaired ‘executive function’ (e.g. decision-making, planning, judgement).

• Psychological consequences include: PTSD, dissociation, suicidality, depression, anxiety, and personality change

• Behavioural consequences include: increased compliant and submissive behaviour, and survival-based aggression

Strangulation and Risk

From this it should be clear that strangulation, even when non-fatal, carries with it the very real potential to cause significant and life-changing injury to brain and mind. It is also a significant marker of future risk: if a woman has been strangled, the chance of her subsequently being murdered rises eightfold.

Strangulation is more dangerous than waterboarding: this is because it doesn’t just block the airway, but also the brain’s blood supply. Waterboarding is now considered inhumane, even when its stated aim is to prevent mass terrorism. But there is something morally wrong about a society which still turns a blind eye to the intimate terrorism of thousands of women each week in the UK.

The paper also draws attention to how the legal system fundamentally misunderstands strangulation’s effect on the brain. In a recent British case, a prostitute had been strangled by a client[1]. When she lost consciousness, he panicked, believed her to be dead, and was in the process of abandoning her body by the roadside when she came to. The victim then went to her attacker’s house, where they drank wine together. Her behaviour after the event was used to undermine the severity of the attack, and he was sentenced to just two years. Based on this new research, we now know her behaviour could have been due to existential fear: compliant behaviour in order to survive. Having lost consciousness she would almost certainly have had amnesia for that portion of the attack, but she could also have had wider memory loss: she had simply forgotten what he had done. It could be the result of damage to brain areas involved in problem-solving or planning an escape, or symptomatic of general confusion due to an oxygen-starved brain.

Strangulation and ‘Consent’

Consent always needs to be informed, and it needs to be able to be withdrawn at any point. Neither of these can possibly pertain in the so-called ‘rough sex’ defence. The vast majority of laypeople do not currently understand the very severe risks of strangulation, and so they cannot make informed decisions: how could they, when the law minimises it, and culture glamorises it? Secondly, how many people know they will likely not be able to withdraw consent? This is because the very organ needed to provide consent – the brain – is compromised by strangulation. For a start, consciousness can be lost in as little as four seconds. And someone who is unconscious cannot withdraw consent. But there are other changes to the brain that nullify any concept of consent.

In a bizarre and unethical experiment in the 1940s in which prisoners and psychiatric patients were strangled to observe the effects, the lead researcher first tried the equipment on himself[2]. There was an emergency release button. He found himself unable to press it, even when he wanted to. He was unsure whether this was due to forgetting he could (amnesia) or messages from the brain not getting to his hand (dyspraxia). He almost died. Both these impairments were the result of altered brain and mind functioning as a result of strangulation.

Research detail

This research was conducted by clinicians working at the North Wales Brain Injury Service (Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, NHS Wales) and Bangor University.

Given its importance and timeliness the authors have shared a pre-print of the full paper on the Open Science platform: https://psyarxiv.com/c6zbv/.

The authors systematically reviewed 1,433 papers, which were distilled down to 27 international, peer-reviewed studies. These were largely based on A&E case reports, or analysis of police and forensic records.

We would urge you to read the full paper

[1] Armstrong, (2012). Man choked prostitute after watching Billie Piper in Secret Diary of a Call Girl. The Mirror. Retrieved from https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-choked-prostitute-after-watching-145613
[2] Kabat, H., & Anderson, J. P. (1943). Acute arrest of cerebral circulation in man: Lieutenant Ralph Rossen. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry, 50(5), 510-528.

Read our research on rough sex defences in England and Wales

“Rough sex” claims are increasingly part of violent assault and killing of women – law change is needed but law change alone cannot fix this. We also believe that to date relatively few of the 3.6million UK women violently assaulted in sex have reported this to the police – the criminal justice system must be ready to respond to them when they do.”

In June 2020 we published research on the wideranging success of ‘rough sex’ claims in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. This was key evidence submitted to Parliament in support of an addition to the Domestic Abuse bill to make specific law on ‘no consent to sexual gratification’.

Read the full report here - Consent Defences and the Criminal Justice System, Research Briefing for England and Wales. June 2020

Thrilled: MPs voted to end rough sex defences in the #DABill

MPs vote to end rough sex defences

It's late, so this is brief!  We've live tweeted the key moments from tonight.

Last week the Government published their response to the rough sex amendments, tonight MPs spoke movingly of the need for change and voted the new clause to end rough sex defences into the Domestic Abuse bill.

Mark Garnier spoke again of Natalie Connolly, his constituent, killed by a partner.  He read from a letter from Alan Andrews, Natalie's father:

There is no way that a man should be able to bat away brutal sexual violence as just an accident and pave the way to get away with it. To cope with her private life being explored in intricate detail, on top of the grief of losing her, has been unimaginably hard for the whole family. Natalie is no longer here to tell us what he did to her or why he left her where he did. One thing is for certain: Natalie didn't fantasise about being killed or leaving her daughter without a mum that night."

Tonight Laura Farris MP responded to those who say "if the common law says you can't consent to serious injury or death, then does parliament need to act'? "Emphatically yes, and here's why".  

Harriet Harman, Mark and Laura have pushed so hard for this.

This isn't law yet and we need to see clear statement from Government, the CPS on how they'll collect and evaluate data on the use of rough sex claims.  This law must be made to work.  The Government say they'll keep the criminal law on this under review - a single failure will be enough for change.  And earlier today, with Harriet Harman and the Centre for Women's Justice, We Can't Consent To This called on the CPS and police to review cases where rough sex claims had been used to drop rape and other assault charges.
 

Read our submission to the Domestic Abuse bill Committee, on our support for the Harriet, Mark and Laura amendments and the need for the Government's own proposals.
Read our detailed research on the criminal justice system response to "consent" defences.

We're happy to call this a victory

This is good, good news

We're pretty happy to call this a victory.  This will mean so much, to so many women.

Today the Government published their proposal for clear law on consent to serious harm, publishing their amendments to the Domestic Abuse bill to make this law crystal clear. This followed an 18 month campaign by We Can't Consent To This with MPs Harriet Harman, Mark Garnier, Laura Farris, and 80 MPs from 6 parties backing their amendments to the Domestic Abuse bill, along with 67,000 people who signed our petition, Grazia magazine and their readers, Mumsnet and the many many others who cheered and supported us along.  Two weeks ago, the Government said they'd come back with their own proposals on ending rough sex defences. We know that ministers Alex Chalk and Victoria Atkins have taken this issue so seriously.  This has been a true collaboration - and today the Government delivered on much - not yet all - of what is needed to change this.

This will come as a huge relief to women.  Violence in sexual relationships is appallingly common now - this new law, if fully enforced, will go some way to making sure those women get the outcomes they deserve if they report to police. And ensure that women and their families are not subjected to the horror of rough sex defences.

There are gaps still, the Government must resolve:
We've long said this will take law change and more to fix - today we see that law.  But the Government must go further:

• Non Fatal Strangulation is widely underprosecuted.  We support The Centre For Women's Justice call to make this a specific serious offence through the Domestic Abuse bill.

• In cases of violent assaults, women's sexual histories are being presented in court to support the claim she consented to violence - and reported in press, along with her name.  

• Change in attitudes and outcomes is needed at every stage of the criminal justice system, and the Government must monitor data on outcomes to make sure their measures have been successful. 

We look forward to hearing more on what else the Government will do to make sure this law works.

Quote: Fiona Mackenzie WCCTT I'm so proud of us, of what we've done.  We Can't Consent To this have done this round our day jobs, we're volunteers, all of us furiously committed to changing outcomes for women.  Some of us knew women who've been killed and were determined to not let what happened to their friend happen again.  For nearly fifty years, the criminal justice system has failed so many women - it's in all of their honour that we've fought this. We couldn't have done this without brilliant MPs: Harriet Harman, Mark Garnier, and Laura Farris, and all the others who've worked together across party lines to change this.  We'll keep going, this isn't law yet, and will apply only in England and Wales: Scotland and Northern Ireland must be next. And we'll continue to generate analysis and influence policy to improve outcomes for women: there is so much still to do.

FURTHER BRIEFING:

Who are We Can’t Consent to This?

We Can’t Consent to This researches prevalence of “rough sex” defences and campaigns against the normalisation of violence against women and girls.  We were formed in response to the inexcusably short sentence given to the man responsible for the death of Natalie Connolly and were the first to research and publish the true extent of rough sex claims in both homicides and in non-fatal assaults in the UK.

In response to Natalie's partner being sentenced, and MP Harriet Harman saying on BBC Woman's Hour that she would do something, WCCTT founder Fiona Mackenzie set the campaign up in a hotel room at Christmas 2018, publishing the stories of women killed to show the extent of consent defences to homicides, and to violent assaults, and the ways the criminal justice system failed the women.

Over the 18 months since, Fiona has been joined by 15 women, all determined volunteers. Some of the women were friends of the women killed - and in honour of their friends have battled to change this.  We Can't Consent To This had huge support from campaign partners Grazia magazine, and Mumsnet.  Harriet Harman MP was joined by Mark Garnier, the MP for Natalie Connolly's family, and Laura Farris, and 80 other MPs from 6 parties, who supported their Domestic Abuse Bill amendments to end the success of 'rough sex' defences.

What is the ‘rough sex’ defence?

“Rough sex” defences are cases where violence is claimed to be consensual - part of sex - by the person accused, at some point in their contact with the criminal justice system. This violence might be in a homicide or non-fatal assault. The victim may also have experienced sexual assault, including rape.
These are cases where violence, including fatal violence, is explained away as “rough sex”, a “sex game”, or “BDSM” “gone wrong”.

What is the scale of the problem?

We’ve found 67 recent cases of people in the UK who were killed during so-called ‘sex games gone wrong’; 60 of those killed were female.  We have found many more women injured in non-fatal assaults which those accused say they consented to. Everyone who has used this claim in a defence in a UK homicide or non-fatal assault is male.
A growing number of women are being seriously injured and killed during so-called ‘sex games gone wrong’. 1996 two women per year were killed or injured during what the defendants called “consensual rough sex”; by 2016 this had rocketed to 20 women per year – a tenfold increase[1].

Of the women killed, half were in relationships with the men who killed them.  Most of those men had a history of abuse.  And many of these defendants had other convictions for serious violence – rape, murder, kidnap – of women.

Extraordinarily, the latest Femicide Census[2] catalogued eight women killed in sexually sadistic homicides in 2018.  Six of those eight men accused of sexually sadistic homicides in 2018 used a ‘rough sex’ defence.  These murders would have a 30-year minimum life term starting point[3] so there is a strong incentive to rebrand this conduct as consensual. 

And in our new research on non-fatal assaults, we’ve found 115 people who have had to attend court where it’s claimed they consented to violent injury – all but one of them women, and 67 injured In just the last ten years.  All of those say they didn’t consent.  The violence used in non-fatal assaults includes waterboarding, wounding, electrocution, strangulation and asphyxiation, slapping, beating, punching, and kicking, and in one case, a shotgun fired intimately at a woman. It appears fairly common for those with history of domestic abuse who are accused of violence like beating or wounding to tell police that the woman’s injuries were in fact due to rough sex.

But still those claims worked, in a lighter sentence because the defendant believed she was consenting, dropped prosecutions because the woman may have discussed a “sex fantasy” – and as reported this month: a woman told by the CPS that they won't prosecute her violent assault because the courts may overturn the existing case law, and the defendant say she consented to it.  If the CPS won't prosecute the existing law, parliament must step in.

Strangulation in these cases is rarely prosecuted at all, or as common assault: it should be tried as ABH or above.  And in many cases, the victim’s sexual history viewed in court, and reported in the news, with her name.

And this is at a time of a shocking rise in violent assault of women in sex: BBC research reveals that 38% of UK women under 40 have experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging, or spitting during consensual sex.[4]   This is 3.6 million UK women who have been violently assaulted, and most of the men[5] who do it say they are influenced to do so by porn. Every day women write to us sharing their experiences: sexual violence against women is being normalised. Few of those women have yet contacted police, although we’ve heard anecdotally of a ‘huge’ increase in reports seen by police, and appallingly of women told by officers  in four police forces that you “can consent to” strangulation now.

The particular harm of strangulation and asphyxiation

Strangulation and asphyxiation is an overwhelming feature of the homicides claimed to be rough sex – around two thirds of those women have been strangled.  In Non Fatal assaults, strangulation is explained away as “consensual”.

Although it is common for strangulation to leave no visible signs of injury, new research sets out the terrible harm suffered by victims of non-fatal strangulation, with the onset of symptoms sometimes delayed by days or weeks. Harms can include stroke, cardiac arrest, miscarriage, incontinence, seizures, paralysis, speech disorders, and other forms of long term brain injury.  This research by NHS clinician researchers[6] terrifyingly sets out:

• Up to 10% of the population have experienced strangulation.

• This rises to over 50% of women subject to routine domestic abuse, and up to 20% of women who have been sexually assaulted.

• Strangulation is an overwhelmingly gendered crime: in a review of 300 forensic records in San Diego, 298 involved a man strangling a woman.

• if a woman has been strangled, the chance of her subsequently being murdered rises eightfold.Neck structures are alarmingly fragile: blocking the jugular vein can take less pressure than opening a can of Coke.

• Consciousness can be lost within as little as 4 seconds of arterial pressure. Losing consciousness indicates at the very least a mild brain injury. 

• Consciousness was lost in between 17% and 38% of strangulation incidents identified.

• It is thought strangulation might be the second most common cause of stroke in women under 40.[7] and

In one “rough sex” case where the defendant was not prosecuted for strangulation: – “Her idea was to involve the violence with the sex. She insisted on strangulation. She just wanted more and more and more”.  She didn’t agree she consented.  He was found not guilty of all charges which were brought - wounding and threats to kill - at court.

Strangulation is widely underprosecuted[1] and we support the introduction of a specific, serious, strangulation offence. [1] Domestic Abuse bill, the need for an offence of non-fatal strangulation; Centre for Women’s Justice 2020

What did we ask for from MPs and the Government?

We believe that defendants who use these rough sex claims do so because they see it working.

We need wide ranging measures to stop the success of these claims:  where they results in no investigation by police, or charges dropped by prosecutors, violence – including strangulation – not prosecuted even where he admits doing it, a sentencing benefit, the woman’s sexual history used against her and reported in press. 

MPs Harriet Harman, Laura Farris, and Mark Garnier – the family MP for Natalie Connolly, a young woman killed with a rough sex defence -  have worked together to set out amendments to the Domestic Abuse bill now before bill committee.  These move and clarify the current law in statute, ensure prosecution decisions are reviewed in these homicides, make strangulation a specific, serious offence, and protect victims from having their sexual history used against them in court. These amendments have cross party and significant public support: 65,000 people have already signed our petition with Grazia, and 75 MPs from 6 parties have already signed up to support.

We want Bill Committee MPs to adopt these amendments, as they are strong proposals which can begin to end the success of rough sex claims.

But the Government are considering their own proposals.  We know the Government know how serious this is, and that they can, and must, go further than the amendments proposed to date.  We must protect women who’d just met the perpetrators, who wouldn’t be covered by the scope of the Domestic Abuse bill, protect victims of common assault too from having their sexual history used against them, and ensure that data is collected so the Government know whether their measures have succeeded.

[1] We Can’t Consent To This Research 2018-2020

[2] Femicide Census of 2018 - February 2020

[3] Section 5 of Schedule 21 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act

[4] 'A man tried to choke me during sex without warning' - BBC 5 Live/Savanta ComRes Research November 2019

[5] BBC 5 Live and Disclosure/Savanta Comres 2020

[6] A Systematic Review of the neuropsychological outcomes of non-fatal strangulation in domestic and sexual violence

[7] Domestic Abuse bill, the need for an offence of non-fatal strangulation; Centre for Women’s Justice 2020

Today was a big move forward - over to the Government

The Government made a big step today - committing to action on the "unconscionable" claim that a woman consented to violence

An update:

We think today in parliament brought promise of very good news.  At the Public Bill Committee in parliament, Jess Phillips made an incredible speech to move the amendments to the Domestic Abuse bill to end rough sex defences, proposed by Harriet Harman, Mark Garnier, Laura Farris and supported by more than 80 MPs from 6 parties.

Alex Chalk responded for the Government - and promised the Government will come back with its own proposals by Report stage of this bill.  This is what we had hoped: that the amendments would keep pressure on the Government to make its own proposals, and today we heard more on the intent, if not yet the detail, of those proposals.

In particular, Alex Chalk said:

• That Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier had run a formidable campaign and have engaged very closely and constructively with the Government.

• It was “unconscionable for a defendant to say that the death of a woman, and it is almost invariably a woman, is justified, excusable, or legally defensible, because that woman had engaged in violent and harmful sexual activity, which resulted in her death, simply because she consented. That is unconscionable, and this Government is committed to making that crystal clear.”

• The Government will make sure that their proposals go further than the scope of the Domestic Abuse bill, ensuring that (for instance) women who’d only just met the men will be protected, leaving no “wiggle room” for defendants.

• Speaking of his time as a defence and prosecution barrister: “your job as a defence advocate is to exploit whatever wiggle room there is in the law – our job here is to close that down.”

• And that the Government’s own proposals will “give practitioners – but more importantly people - the absolute clarity on what is and what is not acceptable.”

• And gave assurance that the Government’s aim is to set out their approach to “rough sex” in time for the bill’s report stage.

Jess Phillips MP agreed on this basis to withdraw the “rough sex” amendment for “no consent to death” saying as she did so: “I am very pleased to hear that we will have intention at Report, and I speak entirely for the hon member for Wyre Forest and for Camberwell & Peckham in that regard.”

More on this when we see what the Government do next, but this is a huge step forward.

• Jess Phillips and others talk of the need for the rough sex amendments, from 10:34:30 https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2f50e204-61f7-4c92-8404-2a2c47924a78

• Alex Chalk speaks on this from 10:58:30 https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2f50e204-61f7-4c92-8404-2a2c47924a78

• Quote from Fiona Mackenzie, WCCTT founder: “We agree with Alex Chalk that Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier’s campaign has been formidable, and have long said that only the government can make the far reaching change that is needed: with law change and more to end the success of rough sex defences.  Today gave us real belief that the Government may be ready to do this – but they must be bold enough and not take half measures.

• Our petition with Grazia magazine is at 66,000 signatures.

• We Can’t Consent To This’s evidence to the Domestic Abuse bill committee in support of the amendments, and noting the areas where the government would need to go further in their own proposals: 

• https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmpublic/DomesticAbuse/memo/DAB20.htm

Get support

We Can’t Consent To This is a volunteer campaign group, dedicated to raising awareness of the increasing number of women and girls killed and injured in violence that is claimed to be consensual. Many women have approached us to ask for support - we can’t offer this directly but this post sets out the ways you can get the support and information you need.

If you have recognised your own experiences through our work, you may want to reach to specialist women’s organisation for support.

Non-consensual violence during sex is a form of abuse. You will be listened to and believed by violence against women and girls (“VAWG”) services. You may also find it helpful to read about other women’s experiences, here. You are not alone.

Sexual violence services

Rape Crisis - for rape and other sexual violence and sexual abuse

Rape Crisis Centres provide specialist services to women and girls who have experienced rape, sexual violence - including violence in consensual sex - or sexual abuse at any time in their lives. You can find your local Rape Crisis Centre in England and Wales, Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

You can also get support and signposting to services in your area by calling the national Helpline provided by Rape Crisis South London, on 0808 802 9999 (open 12 noon – 2.30pm and 7 – 9.30pm every day). If picking up the phone feels like a big step, you can talk to Rape Crisis via their live web chat function, here, or read more about your options and next steps here.

Sexual Assault Referral Centres

Sexual assault referral centres (SARCs) offer medical, practical and emotional support to women who have experienced sexual violence. You can find out more about SARCs on the Rape Crisis website, and find your nearest service on the NHS Choices website.

The ‘Revenge Porn’ Helpline for image based abuse

If somebody has or is threatening to share intimate images of you, you can contact the ‘Revenge porn’ Helpline on 0345 6000 459 or email them on help@revengepornhelpline.org.uk. The Helpline is open 10am to 4pm, Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) and provides non-judgmental, confidential support around reporting and removing content, reporting to the police if you want to, and accessing legal advice.

Domestic violence services

Many women experience sexual violence from their partners, often as part of a pattern of controlling and abusive behaviour. If your partner has put pressure on you to do something sexual that you don’t want to do, or shamed you into trying things that feel degrading or frightening, domestic violence services can support you. 

You can call the 24-hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by the charity Refuge, for free and in confidence, on 0808 2000 247. Trained female advisers can provide emotional support, let you know your rights and options, signpost you to services in your area and help you get a place in a refuge, if you want to. They can support you regardless of whether you have left your partner, or are still with them. You can also contact the Helpline online via a web form, and choose a time when it is safe and convenient for them to call you back. Visit www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk for more information.

Women’s Aid also provides a directory of local domestic abuse services, so you can access support in your community, and information and resources for women on their website.

Your local authority website should also have information about domestic abuse (and wider VAWG) services in your area. When looking online for domestic abuse support, consider whether your partner might be monitoring your internet use. It is important they do not find out you are seeking support, as it may escalate their behaviour. You may want to use a public, work of friend’s computer. Refuge has more information on keeping your technology safe, including a Chat Bot that can show you how to secure your accounts and devices.  

Specialist services for minoritised women

If you would prefer to access a domestic or sexual violence service specifically for Black and minoritised women, Imkaan (a charity dedicated to addressing violence against Black and minoritised women and girls) provides listings here. You can also phone the Helpline run by Southall Black Sisters, on 0208 571 0800 (open Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 9:30 am – 4:30 pm).

Support around the law

Rights of Women provides legal advice and information on a wide range of legal issues impacting women. Their website has specific information around the legal system for women who have experienced any form of Violence Against Women and Girls. Their criminal law advice line can support women around reporting sexual abuse and navigating the criminal justice system. Contact them on 020 7251 8887, Tuesdays 7pm-9pm.

The SPITE project (Sharing and Publishing Images to Embarrass), run by the Queen Mary University of London's Legal Advice Centre, provides free and specialist legal advice to victims of image based abuse, sometimes called ‘revenge porn’. Find out more and contact them here.

Stalking

The National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, can help if you are experiencing continual harassment or stalking behaviour (this could include, for example, if someone is repeatedly sharing intimate images of you online). You can reach them on 0808 802 0300. There’s more information and an online contact form here. 

Paladin also offered information and advice around stalking on their website, here.

MPs Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier take action - on "rough sex" defences

We’re very hopeful following MPs Harriet Harman and Mark Garnier’s announcement that they will take action over the use of “rough sex” defences. Mark is Natalie Connolly’s MP and Harriet inspired We Can’t Consent To This when she spoke out about Natalie’s killer’s sentence and Harriet’s fear that “rough sex defences would become the new “she asked for it” defence to murder of women.

Mark and Harriet have published a piece in the Huffington Post this week on the Domestic Abuse Bill now before Parliament:

[The Domestic Abuse Bill]… is another giant step away from the attitude that what happened between a man and his wife was a private issue and if he was violent it was probably because she brought it on herself.

But at the same time as we’ve been making progress, another version of “she was asking for it” has reared its ugly head. Men are now getting away with murder, literally, by using the “rough sex” defence. 

Though he might admit he caused injuries which led to her death, he claims it was not his fault as it was part of a “sex game gone wrong”. She, of course, is not there to say otherwise. So, he gets into the witness box and gives lurid, unchallengeable accounts of her addiction to violent sex and explains that the bruises that cover her body were what she wanted. The grieving relatives see him charged not with murder but only manslaughter. And they not only have to listen to him traducing her reputation in court, they have to see his description of her sexual proclivities splashed all over social media and in the newspapers. She’s dead so he gets to tell the story of how he was only doing what she wanted.

We now have the modern version of “she was asking for it”. It’s time we shut that down too and we can by adding it to the Domestic Abuse Bill.

Read the full piece here.

The Domestic Abuse Bill will apply to England and Wales and will have its second reading in Parliament later this year. We’ve previously asked for this bill to specifically allow for claims of consent to violence.

In the News: A Fifty Shades of Grey area over violent sex

Our campaign has been featured in this powerful long read piece by Louise Perry, in Standpoint magazine.

No one except John Broadhurst knows exactly what happened in the early hours of December 18, 2016. His version of events is as follows. He and his girlfriend Natalie Connolly spent the afternoon and evening drinking in a variety of bars and clubs before returning to his house in Staffordshire by taxi. The taxi driver testified in court that he left Connolly at the doorstep of the house. He was the last person, apart from Broadhurst, to see her alive.

Please read the full piece here.