Two scenarios illustrate this point. First is the situation of the original Grab driver who was accused, and eventually acquitted, of attempting to rape an intoxicated 19-year-old customer in 2018.
The army argued that the sexual acts were lawful, relying on the person’s participation in oral sexual and that screaming was heard in in-car sound clips. The army argued that, even if the sexual functions were not lawful, the man was mistaken and held the fair perception that she consented. It may therefore have been necessary to subject the plaintiff on her activities that would have given rise to his idea, mistaken or normally, that she had consented.
Second is the situation of the professor who was convicted of molesting a 10-year-old pupil. Concerns about the murderer’s clothes had been permitted because they were in relation to an contradiction regarding whether the criminal had touched her over or under her clothing. These concerns, opined Justice Vincent Hoong, did not sustain the dangerous myth that sexual abuse is provoked by what the target wears.
VICTIM-BLAMINGISN’T IN THEACCUSED’S INTERESTS
Consequently, whether a series of questions crosses the line is very fact-specific and depends entirely on whether it is important to the accused’s army. What is acceptable in one situation may not be for the following.
In Panfilov’s situation, issues may have included some of the elements raised by Mr Chia. For instance, Panfilov’s attorney raised some concerns regarding the victim’s information, such as her giving Panfilov her home address so that he could call a private-hire car to send her home after the event. In convicting Panfilov, however, the court found that the victim had reasonable explanations for most of these difficulties.