Murder of Natalie Connolly

Natalie Connolly was murdered on the 18th of December 2016. Natalie Connolly was murdered by her partner John Broadhurst from acts of violence during sexual intercourse. Despite Broadhurst’s claims that she consented to the 40 injuries she was found to have sustained, he failed to call upon emergency services to treat her thus resulting in her bleeding to death.

The injuries inflicted upon Natalie Connolly included ‘ lacerations to her vagina resulting in arterial and venous haemorrhage’ from the insertion of a bottle of carpet cleaner, bruises from John Broadhurst beating her with his hand and a suede boot, a ‘blowout fracture to her left orbit’, injuries to her breasts, alongside many others.[1]

Trial

In the Crown Court at Birmingham, the judge, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, held John Broadhurst guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence after he pleaded guilty halfway through the trial.[2] He sentenced Broadhurst to three years and eight months in prison.

The defence which John Broadhurst relied upon during his trial was ultimately the ‘rough sex’ murder defence which argues that Natalie Connolly consented to the injuries he inflicted upon her during intercourse. It was accepted that the beatings by hand and boot made by John Broadhurst had been consented to by Natalie Connolly. It was also accepted that some injuries would have been caused accidentally by herself due to her high intoxication levels.[3]

John Broadhurst was released from prison after serving 22 months.[4]

Response

The case has been very controversial and has been subject to much criticism. In December 2018, Fiona Mackenzie founded the ‘We Can’t Consent to This’ campaign after discovering the case of Natalie Connolly. Her aim behind the campaign is to raise awareness surrounding the issues of violence during sexual intercourse whilst also campaigning to abolish any successful attempts of the ‘rough sex’ defence, also known as the ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ defence.[5] In an interview, Mackenzie was astonished to hear that despite many disapproving of the verdict, there were several others accepting it as they “somehow believed it, saw it as a weird one-off and thought the victim must be to blame for the riskiness of her behaviour.”[6]

Natalie Connolly’s MP Mark Garnier, alongside MP Harriet Harman have since taken action to resolve the issues of the ‘rough sex’ defence by advocating amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill in England and Wales. Although there is case law that prevents a defence of consent whereby the injuries are serious, they believe this is not enough.[7] According to them, the Domestic Abuse Bill is important as it will be “under the noses of the Crown Prosecution service and judges.”[8]

The law

As it stands, the current law in the United Kingdom on consent to masochism during sexual intercourse derives from the decisions of R v Brown where it was held that a defendant cannot rely upon the consent of its victim where he has caused actual or grievous bodily harm.[9]

References
  1. R v Broadhurst [2019] EWCA Crim 2026, (14 November 2019), Court of Appeal (UK)
  2. "R -v- John Broadhurst: sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Julian Knowles". www.judiciary.uk. Retrieved 7 June 2021.
  3. R v Broadhurst [2019] EWCA Crim 2026, (14 November 2019), Court of Appeal (UK)
  4. Guttridge, Richard (5 October 2020). "Millionaire killer of mother walking free after 22 months 'unbelievable', says MP". Express and star. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  5. "We Can't Consent to This". We Can't Consent to This. Retrieved 30 May 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. Moore, Anna (27 November 2019). "'There's a new level of anger': the women fighting to end the 'rough sex' defence". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2021.
  7. R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19, 1 AC 212 (11 March 1993), House of Lords (UK)
  8. Mark Garnier, Harriet Harman (19 July 2019). "Men Are Using The Narrative Of Women's Sexual Enjoyment To Get Away With Murder, Literally". Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 June 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19, 1 AC 212 (11 March 1993), House of Lords (UK)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.