Had Sex With the Wrong Woman

Commodore

Deity
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
12,059
Rape accused 'had sex with wrong woman'
From:
April 21, 2006
A MAN who claims he mistakenly had sex with "the wrong woman" after entering a dark bedroom at the home of a Sydney magazine editor was yesterday committed to stand trial for rape.

Paul John Chappell, 31, was invited back to the editor's Bondi flat after they met during a night out.
The pair went to bed and Mr Chappell later got up to use the bathroom.

But Mr Chappell claims he mistakenly returned to the wrong bedroom, where the editor's 23-year-old flatmate was asleep.

He got into bed with the flatmate and initiated sex, allegedly believing she was the other woman.

The flatmate participated because she thought it was her own boyfriend who had come to bed after falling asleep in the loungeroom.


Advertisement:
When she turned on the light, the "hysterical" woman saw Mr Chappell in her bed and realised her boyfriend was still asleep on the couch.
Mr Chappell intends to plead not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.

"The defence case is he made a mistake," barrister Wayne Flynn told the Downing Centre Court Local yesterday. "He went into the wrong room and had sex with the wrong person.

"He thought he was having sex with the person he went home with.

"The [alleged victim] says she believed she was having sex with her boyfriend. She made a mistake as to who she was having sex with and so did the defendant."

In a statement to police on the morning of the incident on October 1, the alleged victim said she had gone to bed about 2am, leaving her drunk boyfriend asleep on the lounge.

"The next thing I remember was waking up to someone having sex with me," she said. "I assumed straight away that it was [my boyfriend] because I wouldn't even consider that it would be anyone else."

She also said: "When the light is out, it is black in our bedroom, you can't see anything."

To her dismay, she later turned on the light and realised it was Mr Chappell, not her boyfriend, in the bed.

"I was totally gutted that it was him and not [my boyfriend]," she said. "I went straight into [my flatmate's] bedroom hysterical."

The screaming woman pushed Mr Chappell out the front door shortly before her boyfriend woke up and was told what happened.

"[He] was so beside himself and enraged that he said he was going out to find [Mr Chappell] and kill him," she said.

In her statement to police, the magazine editor said Mr Chappell was "pretty drunk" when they arrived home and they went to her bed but she refused to have sex.

"He got up and went to the toilet," she said.

"After what seemed like five minutes I assumed he had passed out on the lounge or something, so I rolled over and went to sleep. The next thing I remember was [my flatmate] running into my room quite hysterical."

Magistrate Margaret Quinn committed Mr Chappell to stand trial but said it "may well be a difficult case for the prosecution" to prove.

A date for Mr Chappell's trial will be set next week.

Well, what do you all think? Should this man really go to jail for making a mistake like that? I personally feel that the case should be thrown out. No need to label this guy a sex offender for just making a drunken mistake.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the source.
 
Yeah, I don't really see how any court could convict this guy. I think this might just be the world's first documented case of accidental rape.

Btw, I posted the source.
 
The specific facts described do not describe rape in my mind. It seems like both parties made the same mistake . . .
 
This is ****ed up. The woman is just as guilty.
 
I think you're all missing something here--he initiated sex with a sleeping person, and a sleeping person, of course, cannot consent. Also keep in mind that the "right" woman turned him down. So his defense, then, is that he raped the wrong woman?
 
Next turn on the light while having sex and this will not happen. So;ution solves this delema. :rolleyes: How on earth did the boyfriend not know that they were having sex? This almost should belong to the H&J forum.
 
The article doesn't say if she was awake before actual intercourse, which is usually how it works if you're trying to have consentual sex with the person you went home with. If she didn't say no at any time, then it is not rape. Good luck proving it either way though.
 
Many things are left out. Physical description should be some proof. Weight, height, hair length, of both women and both men. Breast size, penis size, circumcision (sp), did they not say anything while having sex?

I blame both sides. However, if she was asleep during the initiation of intercourse, I can see she could press charges. Might teach him to stumble around drunk. It also seems aweful strange he was denied sex, then went to the bathroom then "Hey, lets try this room with THIS chick"

Too little information exists for me to say whether or not it should be thrown out. Even if it is not thrown out the judge should not register him as a sex offender as it was consensual sex. No matter how you look at it. She never said no and neither did he. How about saying something like "I love you" or something to make sure you hear the right voice in return.
 
I don't know what to say. Sounds as though he was quite negligent though and the fact that she was asleep when he had sex would likely count as rape

Anyway i wouldn't dismiss the case outright
 
Anyone else kind of turned on?

Anyways, if they are going to punish the guy, they might as well just let the girl's boyfriend loose with an advanced pardon for what ever crime he may commit to the guy.
 
Funnier than the majority of material posted on humour and jokes :goodjob:

Regardless of whether the guy knew what (or who) he was doing, a court can not justly convict the dude. I doubt Mr Chappell just 'slipped it in', so even if he knew who she was (or wasn't), he may have a just case anyway. She was receptive after all.
 
I saw this on FARK too.

All I can say is that I've been having sex with the wrong woman for years now......

(Joke BTW!) :p
 
The thing that struck me was the same as shortguy, neither woman gave consent, so he raped the wrong woman. But the story doesn't really give enough info, and a trial probably won't either...
 
If Australian law is anything like Canadian law (which given the common roots is a fair asuumption) I don't see how this guy could be convicted. One of the requirements to convict someone of a crime is that the person must have intended to commit the crime, which he did not.
 
I think it's very important to consider 2 things here.

Would it have been easy to confuse the 2 women with the lights out? Are they of a similar body-type?

Would it have been easy to confuse the two bedrooms, given their location in the house, proximity to the bathroom, location of bed, etc.?

If this guy got into bed, the woman was sleeping, and he started petting her and attempted to initiate sex - after which she woke up and participated without any objections - I'd say that that's not rape at all.

Real question is though, can the guy make a good case that he really might have confused both the bedroom and the woman?
 
@warpus, the dude was "pretty drunk". I think his mental state makes it more likely for him to become confused. That's not an excuse for bad behavior, but if the woman was consenting, then it makes the case for rape much harder.
 
He had sex with a woman without her consent, technically, although it's not clear that there's motive. I'd say guilty, but with the minimum possible sentence for rape.
 
sysyphus said:
If Australian law is anything like Canadian law (which given the common roots is a fair asuumption) I don't see how this guy could be convicted. One of the requirements to convict someone of a crime is that the person must have intended to commit the crime, which he did not.

Actually, given that the woman he intended to have sex with turned him down, you could contest that point.
 
Back
Top Bottom