The fantasy that solely a sure kind of particular person would commit a sexual assault was additionally put forth by defence attorneys, Cunningham says, noting they steered their purchasers’ “good character” is proof they would definitely not dedicate a sexual offense.
“The fact is that many people who commit sexual assault are hard-working, highly valued members of their community whom everyone regards as being of good character. It does not mean that they can’t commit or haven’t committed the offence of sexual assault.”
The final false impression is the fallacy that if there may be self-blame, remorse or pity, after that the intercourse was consensual, Cunningham claims, together with E.M.’s remorse and pity regarding what occurred had been “weaponized versus her.”
The safety appeared to state E.M. “chose to abandon restraint” which “flirting and dancing on the dance floor make it more likely that she would choose to engage in group activity,” Cunningham competes.
The implicated individuals aren’t enabled to rely on their concept regarding broad subtle permission, or that even when E.M. did one level that she would definitely be okay with one other factor, as a help, she contains.
Cunningham completes her closing disagreements by using what E.M. said all through her assertion: that the males had been externalizing her and poking enjoyable at her, and any kind of amongst them can have found she had not been okay, but they actually didn’t.
That reasoning is solely element of the sexual offense misconceptions and “mistakes of law about what consent is and how it can be communicated,” Cunningham claims.
“I urge Your Honour to accept the evidence of E.M. and we urge Your Honour to find each of the accused guilty as charged.”
