[Tezcatlipoca]

Sexual intercourse requires consent, but consent does not require a "written invitation". At no time did I say or imply that it required a "written invitation", and it is nonsense to say so

If someone wishes to have sexual intercourse with their partner, they require their partner's consent. It can be verbal, it can be non-verbal, but there must be consent.

Prior consent to one instance of sexual intercourse does not give carte blanche consent for any and all future sexual intercourse, whether the partner is awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious. Consent is given before the act, it is not taken away after the act.




The Law:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

The guidance of the CPS:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - CPS

Evidential presumptions (section 75)
If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented. These circumstances are:

(a) Any person used/threatened violence against the complainant at the time of the act or immediately before the first sexual activity began;

(b) Any person caused the complainant to fear at the time of the act or immediately before the first sexual act, that violence was being used/would be used immediately against another person;

(c) The complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time;

(d) The complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time;

(e) The complainant was unable to communicate consent to the defendant because of their physical disability e.g. where a complainant is unable to communicate verbally or to nod or shake their head.

(f) Any person administers or causes the complainant to take a substance, without the complainant's consent, which was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

The following has been posted more than once in this thread...



The actual rape allegation by complainant "SW", as listed in the EAW:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2011/2849.html

[Alleged Offence Number] 4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

From the ruling of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

From the ruling of the High Court of Justice in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:

It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.