Morning:
10°c
Chef cleared of raping lawyer in her 40s who said she was too drunk to consent
Paul Cheston26 Mar 2009
A chef was cleared today of raping a solicitor who claimed she was too drunk to consent to sex.
A jury took 45 minutes to find Peter Bacon, 26, not guilty of assaulting the woman, in her forties, who claimed that he had taken advantage of her because she had consumed too much alcohol to be able to agree to sex.
Bacon smiled and thanked the jurors at Winchester crown court on hearing the verdict.
He earlier told the court that the woman, who he had met twice before, gave him the “come-on”, consented and took part.
The jury heard Bacon, from Canterbury, had gone to the woman's house for drinks after a friend who was already at her home called to ask him over.
About five bottles of wine were consumed by the three over the evening before the friend departed, leaving Bacon and the woman alone.
Bacon told officers: “I thought she gave me the come-on — the body and eye contact was there and she did not give me the brush-off.”
He said the pair started kissing and then went upstairs to her bedroom where she got into bed with her clothes on. He then helped her undress and had unprotected sex.
But in the morning, Bacon told the court, “she asked, did we have sex?' I said, yes', and she started shouting rape'”. He added: “She said, the law has been changed for f***ers like you, if you are too drunk to give consent it's rape', or something along those lines.”
He said he called 999 to report what had happened before going to a police station, and was shocked to be arrested.
Judge Patrick Hooton had warned the jury that the woman's comment that she could not give consent because she was drunk was “completely wrong”.
The law on drink and consent was clarified in 2007 by Sir Igor, now Lord Judge, when he ruled in an appeal that it would be impossible to devise a system to link a person's capacity to consent with how much alcohol was consumed. The key test remained whether an alleged victim had lost her capacity to consent, whether through drink or any other substance, he said.
An alleged victim who had drunk “even substantial quantities” could still consent to sex. Equally a woman who had been drinking might have lost her capacity to consent.
Reader views (11)
A law should be made so as women like her stop making these claims., meaning she should be named. Why in gods name should someone who is innocent be named before they are tried. I hope this women has learnt a big lesson.
- Liam Kennedy, london, 14/04/2009 16:15
Report abuse
Men remain named in rape cases while women protected to punish those who are 'let off'.
Naming her would deter any man from responding to an invitation to come round to her place for a drink, or to accompany her upstairs to bed, or to help her undress...
This case will feed into the figures for 'unsuccessful' rape prosecutions which in turn will lead to more calls to slant the law and judicial proceedings.
The law the woman invoked (the very next morning) was the result of such campaigning.
In effect, it removes the capacity to consent from an intoxicated woman and places the responsibility for that judgement on to men, so they can be prosecuted afterwards.
That's the paradox of the feminism which has shaped legal reform.
- Harry, Reading, 27/03/2009 10:24
Report abuse
Ironic!!!
And you blame the youth of today for too much boozing!
Sorry lady, drink is just an excuse.
- C Cusano, Bedford, 27/03/2009 09:23
Report abuse
I think the accused person in a rape case should not be named until they are found guilty. This poor man has now got to live with the knowledge that his name was plastered all over the papers for a hideous crime which he did not commit.
This also does no favours for the people who are really raped.
Also I think when a woman has accused someone, who is found innocent, she should then be named. This may deter fake claims.
- E Sullivan, London, 27/03/2009 09:15
Report abuse
An impossible situation. The Judge was quite right in assessment, I find it strange this case was brought where was the evidence of rape. No oen denied sex. I verdict for sanity.
- Rob Pemberton, london, 26/03/2009 17:47
Report abuse
45 mins for the jury to make up their mind - should never have got as far as court. I get the impression that some of these prosecutions go ahead on the grounds of political correctness, and on the basis the women are always, always vicitims.
Sometimes they are, and these should be prosecuted, but when cases like this are brought, it devalues the crime of rape, and makes it more difficult for real victims to get justice.
- Jeremy E, London, 26/03/2009 17:40
Report abuse
How can a solicitor in her 40s believe she can abdicate all responsibility for her actions? Has she no pride? She got drunk, had sex and regretted it the next day. It's not unusual and it's certainly not rape in my opinion. With rights comes responsibility.
-Sue, South London
- Sue, London, 26/03/2009 17:39
Report abuse
It seems like the right verdict. But how come the law still allows his face and name to be published whilst hers - as in this case a false accuser - is not? A rape charge is more loathsome and reputation damaging for the accused than many other crimes so surely either both should have anonymity (unless proved guilty) or both should face publicity.
- John, london, 26/03/2009 17:24
Report abuse
as much as it hurst me to say it is women like her that give us all a bad name - if you cant handle your pop dont drink.
I dont understand why the chap's name has been plastered all over the media and she is allowed to remain unnamed
I believe he should had remained unnamed also - and only if found guilt should had been named
it is crazy
- L Parker, london, 26/03/2009 17:21
Report abuse
This is a damn stupid law anyways, if you drink to much and loose your inhibitions and then sleep with someone, it's not rape.
A win for common sense.
- Gordon, Slough, 26/03/2009 16:28
Report abuse
The right verdict, I'm sure.
I bet that man-hating Harridan Harperson is foaming at the mouth over this one, though!
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 26/03/2009 16:28
Report abuse
