World
India
An Australian man, Timothy Malcolm Rowland, has been acquitted of rape after citing his condition, sexsomnia, which led jurors to conclude he was not accountable for his actions while unconscious.
The Trial and Verdict
Rowland, 40, was found not guilty of rape following a seven-day trial in Sydney. The jury accepted Rowland’s defense that his condition—sexsomnia—caused him to engage in sexual behavior while asleep. As a result, they concluded he was not in control of his actions at the time of the incident.
Judge John Pickering, addressing the jury, emphasized that the law should not punish individuals for actions over which they have no lawful control. “We’re not about to punish people for acts that they have no lawful control over,” he stated. He also clarified that while sexsomnia is not addressed in current law, it was not the jury’s role to create new laws.
Episode of Sexsomnia
The events in question took place in August 2022. Rowland and the woman had gone for drinks at a cocktail bar in Darlinghurst, a suburb in Sydney. Afterward, they returned to Rowland’s apartment around 1 a.m. They continued drinking and later took a bath together. The woman then fell asleep in Rowland’s bed.
According to Rowland, he experienced an episode of sexsomnia around 6 a.m., during which he engaged in sexual activity with the woman, who was asleep at the time. Upon waking, she reportedly shoved him off and left the apartment. Rowland maintained that he was unconscious during the act, asserting that he was unaware of his actions due to the medical condition.
Sexsomnia: A Controversial Defense
Sexsomnia is a recognized condition that causes individuals to engage in sexual behavior while asleep, without being aware of their actions. The jury was tasked with determining whether Rowland was experiencing an episode of sexsomnia at the time of the alleged rape or if he was fully awake and aware of his actions.
While there was no dispute that Rowland has sexsomnia, the key issue for the jury was whether he was experiencing an episode of the condition during the alleged event. The woman’s account confirmed she was asleep at the time Rowland initiated the sexual act.
Jury’s Questions and Judge’s Guidance
During deliberations, the jury raised concerns about the consequences of committing crimes while unconscious. They asked Judge Pickering about the potential legal implications. The judge responded firmly, stating that it would be “really dangerous” for a jury to base a verdict on laws that do not currently exist. He reminded them that they should not be guided by personal beliefs but by the law as it stands.
“It’s not for you to create the law,” Judge Pickering advised the jury. He further explained that someone could not be found guilty of a crime committed unconsciously, noting there were no existing laws specifically addressing sexsomnia or criminal behavior related to the condition.
Courtroom Tension and Legal Clarifications
The jury also inquired about the types of evidence that could demonstrate whether someone was awake at the time of the alleged crime. They questioned the necessity of the case going to trial and the reasons behind its prosecution. In response, Judge Pickering stated that the decision to pursue the case was not for him to comment on. He reminded the jury that their responsibility was to analyze the evidence presented and decide whether the alleged rape had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge stressed that their verdict should be based solely on the facts and evidence, without being swayed by emotional considerations or public sentiment. “This is a cold-analytical process,” he said, underscoring the importance of impartiality in the decision-making process.
