Sorry, but I can because I've witnessed it, I just can't say that he's been found guilty of it. If I knew that my friend stole money from his mom for drugs, I don't need to wait for her to press charges and him to be found guilty before I can say he's stolen and abuses drugs. Maybe I could be more careful to not say use specific legal terminology, and not try to say "theft" or "possession" or any kind of specific legal terms but that's not required. Also, I'm writing it, so it'd be libel if anything.
I maybe should clarify that sexual assault, by definition, isn't just rape as most default to thinking of it, but that'd be the fault of the listener/reader. Like when everyone gets a bug up their ass about saying Hill was guilty of domestic violence and act like that is purposefully misleading to make him seem like a woman beater when it was his brother, but it's their fault for not knowing what domestic violence is. People forget that assault can be pretty minimal contact or even no contact because it's an implied threat of force, so yeah, her feelings of fear play a long way here
I'm generally familiar with the courts in America, particularly criminal at the superior level and the municipal courts, but I never try to presume the similarity in other countries, particularly the UK. I understand that there's almost always a lower burden of proof, but I wonder if it sticks to like the same general percents of "guilt" for findings.