Britain, Church of England, Dickie v HM Advocate, England, Freedom, Lindsey Graham, Lord Coleridge, Lord Justice-Clerk Macdonald, Lord Pollock, Queen Victoria, R v Riley, rape, Scotland, Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, sexual history, slut shaming, UK, Victoria Era
The United States has some serious issues. Even Victorian judges had more respect for rape victims. Is it because Victorian Britain was ruled by a woman, who was also the head of the Church? A common thread running through Kavanaugh accusations has been men working together to attack women and cover their mouths to silence their voices and screams. There can also be no further doubt as to why women of Kavanaugh’s generation were fearful about reporting sexual assault.
Queen Victoria at age 18 receiving the news of her accession to the throne, 20 June 1837. Original painting: 1887; She was Queen until 22 January 1901. The British Monarchs are heads of both the government and of the Church.
Excerpt from: “Rape Trials and Sexual History Evidence: Reforming the Law on Third-Party Evidence” by Clare McGlynn (2017):
“Lord Coleridge, giving judgment in 1887, would be forgiven for thinking that in R v Riley he had settled the law on whether sexual history evidence with parties other than the accused is relevant in rape trials. He said that in seeking to prove whether or not a criminal attempt to rape, as was the issue in that case, has been made ‘upon her by A, evidence that she has previously had connection with B and C is obviously not in point’.1 He continued that any such evidence should be excluded:
not only on the ground that to admit it would be unfair and a hardship to the woman, but also on the general principle that it is not evidence which goes directly to the point in issue at the trial.2
Finally, he identified the dangers of permitting such evidence, ‘It is obvious, too, that the result of admitting such evidence would be to deprive an unchaste woman of any protection against assaults of this nature…
1. R v Riley (1887) 18 QBD 481 at 483–4. Lord Pollock concurred stating that it is ‘clear that evidence of the woman having had connection with other men would not be relevant’ and Mathew J said that this approach is ‘in accordance with justice and common sense’.
3. Ibid. Coleridge was not alone. Ten years later, in the Scottish case Dickie v H M Advocate, Lord Justice-Clerk Macdonald stated in relation to sexual history evidence with third parties: ‘I am not aware that such evidence has ever been allowed, and indeed it could only be allowed upon the footing that a female who yields her person to one man will presumably do so to any man—a proposition which is quite untenable’ (1897) 24 R(J) 82 at 84. Lord MacDonald did hold that such evidence would be admissible if it was part of the events which formed the subject matter of the charge.” Excerpted from: “Rape Trials and Sexual History Evidence: Reforming the Law on Third-Party Evidence” by Clare McGlynn, First Published September 8, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018317728824 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
The accusation by anonymous Jane Doe of Oceanside California stated:
“The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.26.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf
Dr. Ford states:
“… Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.” https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-27-18%20Ford%20Testimony.pdf
“Statement Condemning Contemptible Behavior of National Leadership Toward Kavanaugh Accusers. http://www.4vawa.org/ntf-action-alerts-and-news/2018/10/3/statement-condemning-contemptible-behavior-of-national-leadership-toward-kavanaugh-accusers