Is this rape?

Not that there is an offence specifically by that name any more.

A bizarre case, reported from the first bail hearing. It is a tangled tale and one-sidedly related, but the headline charge is that the defendant, male and 22, created a fictional female facebook identity who promised to have sex with a male, 18, if he would have sex with a man. The 18-year-old met the 22 year old, and had sex with him. The 18-year-old told police he would not have consented to the sex if he had not been promised sex with Tayla Edwards [the fictional female] and her friends.

There is more alleged against him which if true would seem to ground more straightforward offences, including blackmail of the 18-year-old by threatening to send his family a video of the sex they had had if he did not have sex with him again.

The 22-year-old is said to be charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. I wonder if in fact he has been charged with an act of indecency without consent. (The video could also be an aspect of this.)

It is said there may be other victims. The defendant has been refused bail.

Belated postscript, August 2016

Turns out it could be rape, in the sense of sexual intercourse and also act or indecency without consent.  See here.  Consent was vitiated by a special statutory provision about fraud (not confined as was traditionally the case to fraud as to the nature of the act or the identity of the person).  In this case the fraud was the existence of the women who it was said would have sex.  The total sentence for all of the conduct was four years and ten months, with a non-parole period of about 2 years and 4 months.

 

4 Responses to “Is this rape?”

  1. wanderer Says:

    Couldn’t make it up (stranger than fiction, of course). What is one to make of the word ‘victim’ which seems prejudicial to my mind ignorant of the law?

  2. Andrew Says:

    Immoral and nasty? Yes. Non consensual? Not so sure. But the subsequent allegations seem to indicate illegality.

    • marcellous Says:

      I agree with you (assuming they are made good). Unclear whether the police have any of the social media records yet. With the publicity, I would have thought the risk of further offences of this sort would have been slight. I think he could have been given bail.

      The sex-skyping ADFA cadet was found guilty of an indecent act on the basis that the secret skyping made the act different from that to which the woman consented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: