Rape clarification plea after trial

The judge ruled that there was no evidence of force

A Labour MSP is seeking clarification of rape law after a judge dismissed a case because there was no evidence force had been used against the alleged victim.

Lord Abernethy told the High Court in Aberdeen on Friday that for a conviction of rape there must be evidence of a degree or threat of force even though the woman had not been a willing partner.

Johann Lamont MSP, who is to meet Justice Minister Jim Wallace over the ruling, says the case "gives out all the wrong messages".

The Crown Office is preparing a report on the case for the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC, Scotland's senior law officer, which could lead to the law being clarified.

Johann Lamont MSP: Sends out wrong signals

Edward Watt, 23, from Hatton of Cruden in Aberdeenshire had been charged with raping a fellow student in her room at Aberdeen University in November 1999.

During the trial the woman said she had repeatedly asked Mr Watt to leave her room and had begged him to stop.

Lord Abernethy agreed with a defence motion that Mr Watt had no case to answer.

He told the court that to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent was not in itself rape and in this case there was no evidence of a degree or threat of force.

Ms Lamont, Labour MSP for Glasgow Pollok, will this week raise the controversial ruling in the Scottish Parliament.

She told the Scottish Sunday Express newspaper: "The outcome of this case gives out all the wrong messages.

If a man imposes himself on a woman against her wishes then that is force.

Johann Lamont MSP

"I take exception to this verdict because it means that force is required to obtain a conviction for rape.

"If a man imposes himself on a woman against her wishes then that is force.

"Women who have been raped have been asked to put their faith in the legal system but Lord Abernethy's comments fly in the face of that."

She added that she has also asked for a meeting with Justice Minister Jim Wallace to discuss the case.

Roseanna Cunningham: "People will be angry"

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We are waiting for the report from the Advocate Depute.

"We will then consider whether it is appropriate for a 'Lord Advocate's reference' which would seek clarification of the law."

After Friday's ruling, the Scottish National Party's spokesperson on justice Roseanna Cunningham MSP said the ruling would perpetuate a myth and people would be angry and astonished.

She said: "Notwithstanding this particular judge's view of the law, I'd always understood the key element in rape was lack of consent.

"It'll come as a huge shock to women to be told that just saying no is viewed by this judge as insufficient.

"People will be surprised, astonished and angry at this pronouncement which reinforces the myth that a woman cannot have been raped unless she is on the receiving end of serious violence."

Len Murray: "I can totally understand the dismay of the complainer"

Legal consultant Len Murray told BBC Scotland: "The judge who presides over a case is there to tell the court, the jury and the whole world if you like, what the law is.

"Lord Abernethy very correctly said what the law is. I can totally understand the dismay of the complainer.

"It might be time for us to have a look and to remove the requirement that there be violence or a threat of violence if the charge is one of rape."