Women’s groups appalled at judgment of Court of Appeal and call for further overhaul of the law and criminal justice practice in relation to strangulation and so called “rough sex” cases.
Commenting post judgment -
Fiona Mackenzie WCCTT stated:
“The AG was right to try to argue that there was an obviously seriously harmful or fatal outcome to the strangulation. It would be ‘obvious to any reasonable person’ that she was unconscious, and that this would be followed by death. This was a desperately serious and sustained assault, of a vulnerable woman, by an intimate partner.
We were horrified to see the court accept Pybus’ claim that Sophie had consented, and was a willing participant, in what Lady Macur called a ‘risky sexual practice’, despite this never being tested in court, and despite this being strongly refuted by Sophie’s former long-term partner and by Sam Pybus’ ex-wife.
We attempted with CWJ to intervene in the appeal – providing evidence that strangulation is a core part of domestic and sexual abuse, and that claims of ‘consent’ to strangulation were too easily being accepted by courts in giving lighter sentences and lesser charges.
This was rejected by Lady Macur who agreed with Pybus’ defence team that Sophie’s strangulation was consensual and so our evidence did not apply.
This could not be clearer case to show that the law (what it says and how it works) must change. Sophie Moss deserves better, and parliament must return to this."
Harriet Wistrich director CWJ added
“Unfortunately the AG was bound to accept the case as presented by the prosecutor in the lower court and in particular that Sophie Moss “enjoyed asphyxiation”. This is a form of victim blaming, suggesting that she was partly culpable for her own death. The evidence is based on the account given by the perpetrator and by one other man who also used her for sex and contradicted by her longer-term ex-partner and father of her children.
The deceased of course could not give her own account. Even if she had consented to being strangled on previous occasions, it is pure speculation to suggest she had consented on this occasion.
We believe in addition to reviewing the law, there needs to be a change in approach to the prosecution of such cases so that a proper review of surrounding all evidence is taken into account before conceding the Defendant’s account.
This case also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of domestic abuse and of violent male offending.”