Dramatic Verdict for Victims of Sexual Assault: Drunkenness Denies the Ability to Give Consent
First Publication: The District Court's ruling states that a man will be obligated to pay the woman half a million shekels in compensation, after he performed a sexual act on her while she was drunk, and according to her, against her will. The judge ruled that the man should have identified the victim's condition: "Her condition did not allow her to give informed consent to sexual contact, any reasonable person understands this"
In 2018, during a family event at the Queen's Court, a 33-year-old man and his 18-year-old cousin entered the men's restroom in the hall together, while the woman was drunk, drugged and had trouble walking. After about 40 minutes, the man's wife found them and took the woman out of the cell, unconscious.
After the two drank alcohol and smoked cannabis, the cousin went to the men's bathroom with her behind him. In the security footage, she appears to be stumbling, almost falling, and vague. They were together in the toilet cubicle for 36 minutes. His wife testified: "I knocked on the door in the first cell, read and bent down, looking down. I saw her lying on the floor with her head to her side, looking faint, and I saw his legs. I tried to open the door and asked him to open it, I went berserk, I went hysterical." At this moment, the revelers gather in the hall and take her out of the toilet cubicle, fainting and foaming out of her mouth, without her underwear.
There are no testimonies about what happened in the cell, other than his testimony versus hers. The man claimed that a consensual sexual act was committed, as he claimed that she had entered the men's bathroom with him. His cousin testified that she remembers the incident vaguely, does not know why she entered the cell with him, and said about the incident that she does not remember much and was completely vague and blurred.
She testified: "I remember very little, I felt terrible and sat in the cell, it was hard for me to stand. He started approaching me, and I felt a really sharp pain," she added, "I started asking him to stop, I even tried to hold on to something and fight it, but I no longer had the strength, I couldn't scream anymore, and I probably lost consciousness from there." In addition, the young woman also noted that she has never had sex with anyone, and has a boyfriend for a long time, "Why would I want my first time to be with my cousin, who is 15 years older than me?" she explained.
Years after the incident, the Lod District Court ruled in a ruling that the man must pay half a million shekels in compensation to the woman. In the important ruling, Judge Guy Shani ruled that the man should have identified that the woman was drunk to a degree that negated her ability to give consent to the sexual act.
Justice Guy Shani defined the legal question: "It is necessary to examine whether, during the sexual intercourse, the plaintiff's perception of reality was weakened to a degree that negates her ability to give free consent; In particular, it is necessary to examine whether the defendant could and should have understood that the defendant does not consent – free consent – to have sexual contact with him," and he stated: "My answer to both questions is in the affirmative." The judge added: "I believe the plaintiff's testimony that she would not have wanted or agreed, with a clear mind and full awareness, to have sexual contact with the defendant." The judge ruled that her version was "consistent with the evidence," while the cousin's version was false. He explained that the cousin claimed that she had called on him to stop, an explicit expression of disagreement, but there were no witnesses to this other than her claim.
Justice Shani wrote that "whatever the reason for which the plaintiff entered the men's bathroom, I was convinced that while she was in the toilet cubicle, her condition did not allow her to give informed consent to sexual contact," and explained: "The fact that a woman accompanies a man to a place does not constitute consent to sexual contact with him."
It should be noted that the incident was also investigated by the police five years ago, but the State Attorney's Office decided to close the case and not prosecute the man. The judge said that she entered the bathroom drunk, drugged and foggy, and was found unconscious after 36 minutes, despite the cousin's testimony that she did not faint. The judge wrote in the judgment that "the defendant, contrary to his version, was with the plaintiff in the toilet cubicle while she was lying on the ground, without underwear, with her head down. It is clear that in this situation she could not give free consent to sexual intercourse, and any reasonable person understands this. Although the defendant is well aware of what happened in the cell – as noted above, his consciousness was normal – he did not provide any satisfactory explanation in the legal proceeding, and chose a false description according to which the plaintiff stood and cooperated all along. In these circumstances, and in light of the totality of the material before me, I am satisfied – at the level required in the civil proceeding – that sexual contact took place at a time when the defendant was aware, or at least could and should have been aware, of the plaintiff's condition and her lack of consent."
Regarding his claim that she consented to the sexual act, because if not, why did she enter the men's bathroom with him, Justice Shani ruled: "At the end of the day, I am unable to establish clear findings as to why the plaintiff entered the men's bathroom. This does not undermine the claim before me, since for the purpose of tort liability I am satisfied with the following conclusion: Whatever the reason for which the plaintiff entered the men's bathroom, I am convinced that while she was in the toilet cubicle, her condition did not allow her to give informed consent to sexual contact, let alone sexual contact as it actually occurred. I was also persuaded – at the required level of proof – that the defendant could and should have been aware of this. These facts establish liability for the defendant (on the civil level) for the damages caused to the plaintiff as a result of the incident, and needless to say, but I will nevertheless note – that the fact that a woman accompanies a man to any place does not in itself constitute consent to sexual contact with him."
As mentioned, Judge Shani ordered the cousin to pay half a million shekels in compensation. All the evidence used by the cousin in the civil lawsuit was in fact collected as part of a police investigation against the cousin - but the State Attorney's Office believed that he could not be prosecuted. A petition to the High Court of Justice was accepted and ordered that the investigation of the case be reopened. This is an exceptional event, since the court does not interfere with the discretion of the police and the State Attorney's Office in conducting investigations. The completion of the investigation also did not help convince the State Attorney's Office, which closed the case again. As stated, despite this, in the framework of a civil lawsuit, the victim's version was accepted.
Attorney Roni Aloni Sadovnik, who represented the plaintiff, said: "Eight years of pursuing justice have come to a successful conclusion, but the taste of justice is felt when it appears immediately, and not after so many years."
TLDR: sex haver problems. this is the states answer to men not getting married anymore,
they need wealth transfer from men to women.
court will make the man pay hefty sum if the woman claims she was drunk.
while dystopian it may be a boost waifubot dev.
