References to the specific sections of the said Acts might be more helpful. There have been a number of attempts, some more successful than others, to deal with three problems in the law of rape.

The first problem lies in "consent". The archetypal issue is the case of a woman (or person in question) who is drunk to or perhaps nearly to the point of being comatose. If a sexual predator continues in the absence of objection, was there "consent". Many men argued so and doubtless many were lying.

Second, there is the problem of "mens rea". If a man genuinely thought that a woman (usual caveat as to gender) consented but in fact she did not, as the law used to stand he was innocent of rape regardless of whether his view was reasonable. This usually arose when the offending sex partner was not the rapist, but a partner of the victim who fantasised about rape. He might induce an third party to believe that rape was the victim's fantasy, and that she would yell and scream but really wanted it. If the third party idiot genuinely believed that, did he intend to rape? Shades of Robin THicke's rather revolting but catchy "Blurred lines" song.

Third there is the problem of reasonable doubt. It is in the nature of sexual offences that in many cases, the only people with direct knowledge were the perpetrator and the victim. Many a rapist went free because of this.

Vera Baird QC has for long campaigned on this issue. One of my contacts may be able to get her views. But she is busy.


So, while sexual offences are not my speciality (except in a purely amateur capacity, fnar fnar) it is fair to say (probably, according to one colleague of mine who used to teach criminal law) that there was an attempt to create a two-tier approach to certain crimes, in order to avoid the scandal of rapists (some of who happened to play professional football, or box) going free.

The details I await.