Riza’s point is more complex than that as far as I can figure out (bearing in mind that the court did not deal at all with the possibility of rape after the video-recording and neither does Riza).

Riza is arguing that as far as the accused is concerned, if she considered that the recording negated any consent she gave, and therefore that rape had occurred, the burden was on the court to prove that she had no reason to believe that the surreptitious recording could vitiate any consent given.

Further, he says that the court had to consider this as an alternative defence, even if “it has not been relied on by the accused,” and that the recording and posting of the video was a criminal offence, and “one that might in the eyes of the victim have vitiated consent.”

Therefore, if she genuinely believed what happened was without her consent, she did not lie.


Sexual conduct is a private passion

The post If the video-recording was without her consent, she did not lie appeared first on Cyprus Mail.