Galloway on Assange.

No that's not the title of possibly the most sickening porn film ever made. Today Bradford West MP George Galloway has made some statements in support of Julian Assange over the rape allegations he is currently facing. In the controversial and attention seeking language we've all come to expect from Mr Galloway he's asserted that Mr Assange is guilty of bad sexual etiquette but not guilty of rape. For daring to suggest that someone is innocent until proven guilty Mr Galloway has been vilified and attacked by feminists and political opponents.

Mr Galloway's comments do raise an interesting point though. Considering that around 25% of rape allegations in Britain result in the conviction of the accuser after their allegation has been proved to be both false and malicious the general consensus that Julian Assange must be guilty simply because he's been accused is deeply worrying. If you look at both of the allegations there was consent to prior sexual acts which can imply consent for future sexual acts and the accusers submitted to both of the sexual acts in question. Therefore it would be extremely difficult for a British jury that had been properly instructed by a Judge to convict Mr Assange on either count and that's before we even get into the credibility or lack thereof of the accusers. I'm actually a little surprised that Mr Justice Ouseley failed to pick up on these points when he authorised Mr Assange's extradition to Sweden. Perhaps he needs to go and re-read Pigg (1982).

21:50 on 20/8/12.

Edited at around 16:10 on 21/8/12.

Today police in Leeds have launched an appeal to find two men who raped a 14 year old boy in the toilets of a department store. The alleged offence actually occurred on June 2nd (2/6/12) so bringing the incident to public attention now seems to be an attempt to muddy the waters over the Assange case because under some very old definitions 14 years old was the minimum age at which a boy/man could rape a woman (men couldn't be raped under the old definition) however this hasn't been the case since certainly the 1981 Criminal Attempts Act. It does though give me the opportunity to clarify the above.

The 2003 Sexual Offences Act defines the offence of rape as; a person(A) penetrating the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis if (B) does not consent to the penetration or (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents. Therefore in order to prosecute someone for rape you must prove beyond all reasonable doubt (i) they have a penis, (ii) penetration occurred and (iii) that there was no reasonable belief that the penetration was consensual.

Rather then being a specific case Pigg (1982) refers to a commentary in the Law Review (446) that serves as guidance to British Judges in rape cases. It that follows that someone cannot be convicted of rape if (i) having considered the matter (A) believes that (B) has consented unless (ii) there is doubt as to whether consent has been given or (iii) (A) is indifferent to the question of consent.

In both of the 'rapes' Assange is alleged to have committed the women had actively consented to a penetration directly prior to the penetration for which is rape is alleged and submitted to the penetration for the rape is alleged. While prior consent is not considered consent in itself in this context it does contribute to a reasonable belief of consent. Even the allegation that one of the women was asleep at the time of penetration does not demonstrate an unreasonable belief of consent or even indifference because while breaking into a woman's house and having sex with her while she is asleep is clearly rape waking up a woman you just had consensual sex with through sexual touching could well be considered 'seduction' (I'll stop short of using the term 'romance') especially if the woman then goes on to submit to the sexual act.

Therefore the Swedish allegations do not constitute rape under British law and even if they did there is no reasonable chance of a successful prosecution so Assange's extradition to Sweden should not have been authorised by a British Court. The Swedes of course know all this which is why they have not attempted to charge Assange or even arrest him. Instead they intend to question him in the hope that he will slip up under pressure and accidentally incriminate himself. Forcing Assange to a foreign country and detaining him for an indefinite period of time for questioning would constitute undue duress.

Also today Dr Freddie Patel the pathologist in the Ian Tomlinson case has been ruled unfit to practice medicine. The timing of this is a little unfortunate because the Judge's incorrect decision to allow PC Simon Harwood to run a defence of 'reasonable force' in his trial for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson is yet another example of the British Judiciary allowing political interest to over-ride the rule of law.

16:45 on 21/8/12.