LETTER: A case of mistaken consent When consent is mistaken
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.ELIZABETH Heathcote assumes that if a man is acquitted of rape, the jury must have thought the woman victim was lying ("Are nine out of ten women liars?", 16 April). This is not necessarily so. Under the Sexual Offences Act 1976, two things must be proved. First, the defendant had intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse did not consent to it. Second, the man either knew she was not consenting or realised she may not have been consenting. In other words he was reckless about her consent. Therefore it is perfectly possible for a jury to conclude that a woman was telling the truth about not consenting, but that the man made an honest, even stupid, mistake. If the jury believes him, he must be acquitted.
Wyn Davies
Burry Port, Dyfed
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments