An Italian judge is facing criticism for acquitting a man accused of groping a flight attendant. The controversial verdict was based on the woman’s alleged delayed reaction, which the judge deemed was inexplicably so slow that it could not be evidence of an actual assault. Vanity Fair Italy informed of.
The justification has sparked outrage from women’s rights groups and the hostess’s legal team, who argue it sets a dangerous precedent and discourages victims from coming forward.
The case revolves around former trade union official Raffaele Meola, who was accused of groping an attendant in 2018. This is reportedly not the first time the judge has ruled in Meola’s favour based on the attendant’s reaction time, raising concerns of potential bias. The verdict is being challenged, with the attendant’s legal team vowing to fight for justice.
After the verdict his lawyer said, “We will appeal to the Supreme Court because this sentence will take us back 30 years.”
The lawyer said the verdict went against the Supreme Court’s tradition which has been prevailing for over a decade now that an unexpected sexual act without the consent of a woman is a crime of sexual violence and should be treated as such.
Despite claiming to believe the victim, Judge Nicoletta Guerriero dismissed the case for lack of “sufficient evidence.” That justification stemmed from one detail of the alleged assault: Mr. Meola, standing behind the woman, allegedly touched, kissed and massaged her for 30 seconds. The key point? The court reasoned that his continued reading of documents during this time showed a lack of immediate objection.
According to Il Fatto Quotidiano, this alleged “slow reaction” led the judge to believe that Mr Mayola may have misinterpreted the situation.
These are the words he said Corriere della Sera“This judicial case once again highlights the need to reform the law provided by Article 609 bis of the Penal Code, which clearly defines that the crime of rape is any sexual act committed without the consent of the woman, whose non-consent is always presumed, as provided by the Istanbul Convention. The burden of proving the woman’s consent to the sexual act must be provided by the accused. Currently, the existing law, with its non-specialized jurisprudence, favors secondary victimization of women who report and this is unacceptable.”
Elisa Ercoli, president of Differenza Donna, also intervened, saying: “This sentence is proof of how our law 66/96 is the cause of severe and persistent institutional violence. We reject a democracy that effectively prevents women from accessing justice after rape. We urgently demand a new law that takes into account evolved standards of justice and does not set our institutions against us.”