Parliament Petition Link - please sign!

It is ESSENTIAL to also sign the link above, as Change.org signatures do not count toward the official Parliament petition.

We support strong protections for survivors of sexual assault.

But we also believe the law must be fair, clear, and just — especially for neurodivergent people and those in long-term, previously sexual relationships, where misunderstandings around consent can lead to wrongful convictions.

We are calling on the UK Government to clarify how consent is interpreted in criminal courts — not to weaken survivor protections, but to ensure that:

• People with autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental conditions are properly supported in the justice system;
• Courts consider the context of past consensual intimacy in ongoing relationships;
• Justice is served not just for victims, but also for the wrongly accused — particularly where there was no intent to harm and no clear withdrawal of consent.
   
  Why This Matters
  In the UK today, a person can be convicted of sexual assault for initiating physical intimacy with their long-term partner — even when:

✅ The relationship had previously included similar, consensual intimacy;
❌ No one communicated that consent had been withdrawn;
❌ There was no indication that the behaviour was unwelcome.
This is especially dangerous for neurodivergent individuals.

People with autism, learning difficulties, or other communication differences may:

• Struggle to recognise subtle nonverbal cues;
• Be unable to explain their intentions clearly during police interviews or in court;
• Be judged by juries unfamiliar with how neurodivergent perception and communication work.
• That combination can lead to devastating miscarriages of justice — especially when legal definitions are applied without understanding the realities of communication differences or relationship context.

 What the Research Shows
A 2021 study by the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University found that:

• Only 51% of autistic defendants were recognised as needing support;
  35% were not provided an Appropriate Adult during police interviews — despite having a diagnosis;
• 1 in 4 received no reasonable adjustments in court;
• In nearly half of trials, juries were never informed that the defendant was autistic

Legal experts such as Natalie Wortley (Northumbria University) have warned that courts often judge a “reasonable belief in consent” without considering how a defendant’s disability might affect that belief.

 A Real-World Reminder: I Am Not a Rapist
The recent Netflix/BBC documentary I Am Not a Rapist has brought national attention to the devastating consequences of false or unclear accusations of sexual assault.

It follows the stories of men who were accused, but never convicted — yet still suffered emotional, reputational, and psychological damage.

It reminds us that:

❗ Genuine harm can occur even when no crime was committed;
❗ The justice system must be robust, fair, and sensitive — not only for survivors, but also for those who may be misunderstood, neurodivergent, or wrongly accused.

Such cases may be rare — but when they happen, they destroy lives. And when the law lacks clarity — particularly around neurodivergent communication and relationship context — the risks are multiplied.

 A Real Case That Inspired This Petition
This petition was inspired by the case of an autistic man convicted of sexual assault for initiating physical contact with his long-term partner in a way that had always been welcome throughout their relationship.

She later claimed she had been asleep during the first act. He believed she was awake — she had just been using her phone moments before — but during cross-examination, after repeated questioning, he said he “could not be 100% sure” because she had her back to him and he could not see her eyes.

That moment of uncertainty — a product of his honesty and difficulty navigating pressured questioning — became pivotal. The prosecutor’s persistent framing led him to doubt himself, even though he knew she was unlikely to have fallen asleep so quickly.

According to the sentencing guidance, this single point meant the court treated the case as involving an “asleep” complainant — with a minimum sentence of six years.

The judge’s directions to the jury, reflecting the current legal test, were:

• Did he perform the acts? (Both agreed he did.)
• Were they sexual in nature? (Yes.)
• Was she asleep for the first act? (She said yes; he said he couldn’t be sure.)
• Did he reasonably believe she was awake and consenting? (His answer shifted under pressure.)

The jury was told that answering “yes” to all these questions required a guilty verdict.

While the court did provide one adjustment — an intermediary sat beside him during cross-examination to help clarify confusing legal language — the broader context of his neurodivergence and communication style was not fully considered.

This man was not malicious or predatory; he was overwhelmed, misunderstood, and unsupported by a system not designed to accommodate neurodivergent communication. His case illustrates how justice can fail both survivors and the vulnerable when laws are applied without context or flexibility.

What We’re Asking For
We are not asking for weaker consent laws.

We are asking for clearer, fairer, and more inclusive application of those laws — so that both survivors and neurodivergent individuals are protected.

We urge Parliament to consider five urgent reforms:

1. Context Matters: Courts must consider the history of consensual intimacy in ongoing relationships when evaluating belief in consent.
2. Neurodivergent Understanding: “Reasonable belief in consent” must reflect how autism and related conditions affect perception, language, and communication.
3. Mandatory Support: Autistic people must always be treated as “vulnerable” in police interviews and automatically receive the protections the law already provides.
4. Educated Juries: Juries must be informed of any neurodivergent condition that may influence how a person acts, speaks, or interprets others.
5. Fair Protection from Misinterpretation: When consent was not clearly withdrawn and no harm was intended, the law should guard against criminalising people due to honest misunderstanding.
    

What This Petition Is — and Isn’t
✔️ We believe survivors must be heard and supported.
✔️ We believe in strong, fair consent laws.
✔️ We believe real justice requires context, communication, and understanding.

❌ We do not seek to excuse harmful behaviour.
❌ We do not seek to reduce protections for victims of assault.

We want a justice system that protects everyone — including vulnerable individuals who may be wrongly criminalised because of confusion, not coercion.

 Please Sign to Support: 
Clearer, fairer consent laws
Better legal protections for autistic and neurodivergent people
A justice system that recognises context and communication differences
Because true justice doesn’t pick sides — it protects everyone.

 
#JusticeForAll #ConsentAndContext #AutismAndLaw #ProtectTheVulnerable #FixConsentLaw