Eeklo (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A man in Eeklo was acquitted of rape due to lack of proof of non-consent. Despite the woman’s injuries and memory loss, the court ruled both were too drunk for certainty.
As VRT News reported, a man has been acquitted of rape. 2 years ago, a woman from Eeklo, in the province of West Flanders, Belgium, reported a rape after a night out that she couldn’t remember. She met an old coworker and had drinks. She then blacked out.
The next morning after the incident, the woman woke up at home, upset. Her clothes were torn, and she was injured. Doctors saw bruises and swelling. Police found empty glasses, they had drunk more at her home. The man had taken her home that night with a friend.
They drank more, and then the friend left. The woman and the man were very drunk. The woman went to a Sexual Violence Care Centre, where doctors found injuries. Investigators confirmed that drinking had continued at her home. The man and the woman were very drunk.
Did the court find sufficient proof of non-consent in Eeklo rape case?
Despite the woman’s injuries and memory loss, the man was found not guilty. The court said there wasn’t enough proof he did anything wrong. The court knew the woman was injured and didn’t remember. There were no witnesses after the friend left.
The man said nothing bad happened. Both were very drunk, which made it hard to know if she agreed. Even though there was proof of sex, the court couldn’t say for sure it wasn’t okay. The man said they started flirting, which led to sex, and he would have stopped if she had objected.
He said she approached him, so she must have been willing. The judge did not pay attention to what the man said or what happened, according to him. Rather, the court’s ruling was made on whether or not it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was unable to give consent.
The judge concluded it was not possible to prove the sexual act happened without consent, especially since there was no evidence showing the woman was too intoxicated to make or express decisions. The court said that drinking alcohol, even a lot, doesn’t mean someone can’t consent to sex.
The verdict stated that if someone drinks, they are still responsible for their actions. Lowering inhibitions due to alcohol doesn’t mean a person loses their free will. The court said that unless it’s clear someone was so drunk they couldn’t make a decision, consent can’t be dismissed just because of alcohol.
“The fact that someone may subsequently regret or experience negative feelings about actions to which he or she had previously agreed, at the time he or she committed them, does not constitute a criterion for labelling those actions as punishable,”
The verdict further states.
