• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

Man Faked Payment for Sex - Rape Charges Dropped

Man Faked Payment for Sex - Rape Charges Dropped
Dartagnan said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

We're talking about consent here, and the moral/logical argument is that consent for sex is negated if any of the conditions for that consent aren't met. How that applies in legal cases is for the court process to figure out. But, there is room in the legislation for this understanding of consent regarding non-payment.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this is that we are applying standard contract and criminal law principles to a sui generis (unique) scenario. Pretty straightforward financial harm case where a con swindles someone out of their money but the nature of the sex industry strains the analogy. Gut reaction was that he's closer to a conman than a rapist but Sahara's comment is food for thought.

Probably a Supreme Court case one day if not already elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
60sGuy said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
The argument, is terms of the court, is a legalistic one - not a moral one. Courts don’t do morals, they do law.

In this case, the judge determined that the sex was consensual - or, at least, was not proven non-consensual. Otherwise the guy would have been convicted of rape/sexual assault.
 
Last edited:
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

A decision that it is rape would have a bunch of downstream effects, do sugar daddies who miss a payment become rapists? Strip clubs that have ostensible independent contractor agreements with strippers sexually violate said contractors by not paying, or paying late? Nude model photographer is a rapist for non payment? What if he/she settles? Is being a rapist conditional on meeting an obligation?

Sahara's comment about her experience with non-payment is certainly important and central to any adjudication. I think that different common law Supreme Courts wouldn't be consistent. UK/US SC reaching a different conclusion to the NZ/CA SC.
 
Last edited:
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Ahh okay I see where you are coming from. However as @Sahara has said, the experience is indistinguishable from other forms of sexual assualt - it is a form of trauma when it occurs, and having the disputes tribunal force the issue doesn't resolve that trauma any more than a jail sentence resolves the trauma of something more violent.

And as others have outlined, the law isn't actually definitive on this at all - likely because it's not the sole arbitrator of what is rape and what is fraud. I'd argue that shifts in societal attitudes do most of the heavy lifting in that regard, given that law changes based on what we think and not the other way around. Else there wouldn't be so many comments agreeing that this situation absolutely counts as sexual assault.
 
ElodieEvans said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Parliament is sovereign, and makes the laws. The courts function is to interpret those laws, and this is done with reference to guiding legislation such as The Acts Interpretation Act.

Sometimes laws are made in advance of majority public opinion - Homosexual Law Reform 1986, Treaty of Waitangi Act, and (maybe) PRA 2003.

Fortunately, for us all, our parliament doesn’t think like the Swedish 🇸🇪 parliament 😳

Changing the law requires sufficient lobbying/public opinion/outrage to get a bill onto parliament’s legislative programme. Or, a sympathetic MP, might try their luck via a Private Member’s Bill.

However, this abysmal behaviour can be circumvented by requiring payment verification in advance of service - as we all know.
 
Adrian said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
I just hope the judge made his decision with clear application of the law and was not swayed by prejudice towards sex work and the seriousness of a rape charge for the 27yo defendant. It is an area open to interpretation.
As I see it, it could have gone either way and could well be open for a valid appeal.

It is not just sex work that this applies to. This case looks to have been a Sugar type arrangement, but it extends further to general sex hookups where if consent is gained by fraud, true consent has not been given.
 
Last edited:
Looking at this from another angle, and the charges touch on this...deception. So how many women have been duped into sleeping with a guy because he misrepresented himself as some big wheeler dealer etc. Then they find out he is 2 bit loser and no hoper. Had she known she never would have consented to have sex.

So I believe this is always going to be a difficult threshold to apply rape to. Basically this guy has stolen services without paying...so if the sentence included full restitution of monies promised to the complainant then does the idea of rape go out the window?
 
Johnny is right here, like it or not. The text below makes it crystal clear:

'But Judge Kevin Glubb dismissed the rape charge. In his judgment, released to Stuff, he said the law needed to be changed before an act of fraud affected consent.'

People can claim whatever they want regarding interpretation, the simple fact is that the law needs to change in order for a fraud to be treated as rape in this, or any similar situation. Suggestions to the contrary are pointless.

Rape is rape, and the penalties are severe for a reason. While fraud under these circumstances is particularly offensive, it is still fraud. As Johnny said earlier, if it did constitute rape, there would have been a conviction. Even if there was a conviction from a sympathetic judge, I suspect it would be overturned immediately because of the repercussions in other scenarios, something OnlyHermes touched on.
 
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

It seems to me the Judge knew some would struggle to accept his decision, so he even went to the trouble of explaining the reason his decision had to be what it was.

This isn't a vindictive or misinformed Judge, it is a Judge making the only ruling he can. The client failed to pay, and thus committed fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top