It seems Ms Mirren makes the following comment:
Dame Helen, who picked up an Academy Award last year for her portrayal of The Queen, said she was date-raped "a couple of times" when she was young but did not report the attacks because "you couldn't do that in those days."
Despite her experiences, the British-born actress said date-rape was a "tricky area" and something men and women had to work out between themselves.
She said it was rape if a couple engaged in sexual activity but the woman said "no" at the last second.
However, in comments likely to anger anti-rape campaigners, she added: "I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them."
Cory strongly disagrees and cites this well written thoughtful post
Abyss 2 Hope is a blog written not by a lawyer but by a novelist who was date raped at 15. She is speaking of the fact that a women (girl) could be naked in a bedroom alone with a boy and still be unwilling to have sex with him and that she would if otherwise forced to have sex be raped.
I have no quarrel with her on that point. I do in her comment section wonder however if it is right to expect a fair jury, one that would credit both sides otherwise unbroken testimony, to return a verdict in a case like the one abyss and Mirren describe of Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, is there a time when it is too late (speaking in terms of trial) for a woman to say no?
I think that as a trial lawyer, that there is, all things being equal. I also question whether it is a good policy to teach young women that they can go so far as to be in a boyfriends room, be naked and expect a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape took place (assuming no other indicia of a rape exists).
I am not doubting the fact that a rape took place nor am I willing to assume based on nothing more than a woman's word, that under these circumstances it did (without at least a confession from the accused or some other physical indicia of a rape). I am saying that as a prosecutor I would not be surprised to find a jury unable to convict.
I even wonder if the jury could do so in a civil trial with a lower burden of proof without engaging in speculation?
This then begs the question, is there a point where the situation has gone too far to expect that a jury will convict someone for Rape? Was Mirren wrong to say that given these facts one should not be able to arrest a man for Rape without a greater case?
I would love to hear your opinions.