On the 16th March 2008 the world crumbled around the family and friends of Martine Vik Magnussen. Described as ‘gentle, inclusive and generous’, Martine was a Norwegian student studying at Regents Business School in London when she was found dead, buried among rubble, after a night out with friends.
Few suffer the pain of losing a loved one to an act of violence, even fewer suffer the anomaly of believing they know who the killer is, yet be unable to bring them to justice. Tragically, Martine’s death is emblematic of many shortfalls of the UK’s legal system; she will likely never receive the justice she so rightfully deserves.
There is only one suspect in Martine’s death: Farouk Abdulhak. Farouk had been a friend of Martine’s from Business School, and the last person seen with her after a night out. Farouk then fled the UK the day after the death, and when interviewed by the BBC admitted his involvement, describing Martine’s death as an ‘accident’. Today Farouk is subject to an international arrest warrant and is one of Scotland Yard’s 12 most wanted criminals.
One would be forgiven questioning why, with so much evidence against him, sixteen years on, Farouk has never been charged and brought to trial. Farouk, however, fled to Yemen, with which the UK has no extradition treaty, adding to this air of immunity was his father, a Yemeni billionaire compared to Trump, connected to the then President of Yemen. Farouk benefitted from an aura of protection, the Yemeni state threatening a BBC journalist, prior to the war, when she intended to investigate Farouk. Even after Farouk’s protection has faded after the war, death of his father and loss of connection to the President, no law enforcement has sought to capitalise on Farouk’s weaker protection, to the extent he allegedly leaves Yemen on private jets occasionally, a slap in the face to the significance of the international arrest warrant.
Though one could launch deserved criticism at diplomatic efforts which failed to result in an extradition, Martine’s death sheds a light on the lack of justice for victims of gender based violence even when perpetrators lack the privilege of Farouk.
Farouk’s admission to involvement in Martine’s death is limited in labelling it an ‘accident’, Farouk’s half admission opens a wider issue prevalent in murders following sexual assault or rape: the so called ‘Rough Sex Defence’. Although R v Brown (1993) established that no-one could consent to serious bodily harm or death, the ‘Rough Sex Defence’, with semantics of victim-blaming, persists as a dangerous mechanism of putting the victim partly at blame. Natalie Connolly’s death in 2016 bears a resemblance to Martine’s, suffering 40 injuries including a blunt force trauma to her head which her killer (John Broadhurst) claimed were consensual. Lacking the mens rea for murder, Broadhurst was sentenced to just three years and eight months for manslaughter.
The issue of the ‘Rough Sex Defence’ has not been neglected, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 s71 restates the principle of R v Brown, hopefully enabling better justice for victims of non-consensual violence. However, as Alexandra Dobson remarks, the difficulties in proving the mens rea in such trials may still persist. Thus, the sentencing of crimes similar to Martine’s death leads one to wonder if justice would be appropriately served even if Farouk was extradited or otherwise returned to face trial in the UK.
The killing of Martine, subsequent fleeing and harbouring by those who supported Farouk’s refuge in Yemen are a glaring example of toxic masculinity and normalisation of violence against women. Farouk, when interviewed by the BBC, demonstrated a horrific lack of remorse or full admission of guilt for Martine’s death, questioning why her father continued to fight for justice and answers as a full confession of events would not ‘bring Martine back’.
Farouk’s attitude towards the gruesome crime which he is accused of committing is an all too glaring example of the belief of the natural dominance of men over women.
Whether it be a genuine belief that Martine and her family are not entitled to justice or a deflective response to the journalist’s questioning, both symbolise the misconception of a ‘real man’. The UN Training Centre identifies how male violence towards women can be justified as a natural urge, or a rite of passage into manhood in some cultures. The crime against Martine, and her alleged killer’s attitude cannot be seen as one act of violence, but a culmination of attitudes and social structures complicit in the subordination of women.
It is obvious that Martine’s family lack justice in the most obvious sense: no one has been charged, extradited, or stood trial for the horrific crime. However, the lack of widespread outrage, and the comfortability Farouk has in speaking about her death in such a callous manner on the world stage goes to show how far we are from eradicating gender based violence even in our ‘developed’ countries.
Comments