Interesting. An extract:
Just last year District Court Judge Robert Newlinds SC raised the same issue in R v Martinez. I’ve written previously about this case, where the complainant nine times got totally pissed and had sex with separate men, only to turn around and report them for sexual assault, claiming she’d been too drunk to give consent. All these cases ended up with the men facing a sexual assault charge, although three were forced to do a deal with the devil (by taking a plea bargain and pleading guilty to lesser offences).
The jury found the accused not guilty and the judge concluded that the case should never have been brought to trial. Newlinds added, “If the jury had known the full picture of the Complainant’s history of accusing men of rape in similar circumstances, the time of deliberation would have been measured in minutes.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I expect more of this sort of thing here. Another stab at trial without jury and more fiddling with the rules of evidence. It will distract from the now decade old obfuscations to hide dissembling about the “grooming gangs” for the previous decades and even currently. We get told we must “do something” about an “epidemic” of crime and “rape myths”. A good way indeed to distract from the real “epidemic” that has slowed the consistent decline (proportionately) in sexual crime since the 1980s. Labour has every reason to turn the spotlight on hapless students who forget to get explicit recorded consent for penetrative sex following a party at the student’s Union.
LikeLike