Fell and penetrated rape case: UK courts not as dumb as you think
You probably would have heard of the news about a Saudi millionaire who allegedly committed rape on an 18-year-old girl but somehow, was cleared of one count after his trial. Many have thought that the UK courts have gone daft for allowing the Saudi millionaire to escape the law with a stupid excuse—that he fell and accidentally penetrated the poor girl.
Before we start speculating about the incident and blow it out of proportion (I’m very sure some of you would have thought that there might be some underlying ‘political motives’ involved in the case), we should take a look at what actually constitutes rape in the UK.
Based on UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003, a rape case is what it is if the following are reasonably true:
Intentional penetration by the penis of person “A” into the vagina, anus or mouth of person “B” with a penis and,
Person B does not consent to the penetration and,
Person A does not reasonably believe that person B consents
It would also do well for us to know that the maximum liability for the accused, if found guilty, is lif imprisonment.
Regardless of how absurd the reasoning or excuse given might be, as long as the prosecution is not able to prove the 3 aforementioned elements, the jury is not entitled to find the accused guilty of rape.
Think about it – a wide variety of things could have happened in the house. She went willingly to his house, she accepted a drink and stayed in the house without incident for a long stretch of time. To send someone to prison for life is a very harsh sentence indeed – the courts has to be very certain that the correct person is apprehended for the correct crime.
So read beyond the sensational headlines – there’s more to it than you think.