Girl lied about 'sex assault' out of loyalty to her family

Drax

[Mods - not sure where to put this so move if necessary]

Just read this:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/girl-lied-about-sex-assault-out-of-loyalty-to-her-family-1634063.html

Girl lied about 'sex assault' out of loyalty to her family

A MAN falsely accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl had his conviction quashed yesterday.

The girl admitted making up the allegation and said it was done out of "revenge and misplaced loyalty to my family" because of a dispute over land.

The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) heard yesterday the DPP was not challenging the man's appeal against conviction, and the court said, on that basis, it would quash the conviction

In 1999 the man, from the west of Ireland and now in his mid-30s, received a suspended four-year prison sentence at Galway Circuit Court. He had been found guilty of sexually assaulting and of assaulting the girl near her home in Co Galway in January 1997.

He had vehemently denied the charges.

The girl, whose family were in dispute with the family of the man over land, claimed he had sexually assaulted her, but later said she wanted to tell the truth, so his name could be cleared.

In 2006 the girl, who is now in her 20s and resides outside of the country, made statements to the gardai withdrawing her complaints against the man.

The girl also admitted that her original complaints were fabricated and false in their entirety.

She told gardai that none of the allegations against the man were true and that her motivation for making them was "revenge and misplaced loyalty to my family".

She also admitted that she had never come into contact with the man, nor had any conversations with him at any stage in his life, and that she was never coerced or coached by anyone.

The court yesterday had the man's application to have his conviction declared a miscarriage of justice adjourned to next month's list to fix dates.

I suppose nothing will happen to this girl? A man's reputation is in tatters and she gets to walk away. Would he have any case for defamation? She is now in her 20's - I wonder how she feels about lying now.

MagicMarker

Sickening.

She should be punished in some way, shape or form.

Nevyn

She was 10, it's her parents who should have charges laid against them.
clearly she felt bad enough that she took the time to come forward
and make the statements so that his convictions were squashed.
Fair play to her, it could well be she could not do that until she got away from
her scheming family. Her parents must have coached her, they are the culpable ones.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What I want to know is that, if she never even met the man, how did a jury find him guilty...? What was the eveidence? I know this IS the West of Ireland, but...

Nevyn

Cross collaborating false testimony.

Phototoxin

Her parents must have coached her, they are the culpable ones.

but proving that would be difficult

What I want to know is that, if she never even met the man, how did a jury find him guilty...? What was the eveidence? I know this IS the West of Ireland, but...

yeah well CSI:Ireland ya know... cant shagging investigate?

Seriously unless we know more it would be hard to say at what level the mistake occured

VeryBerry

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was 10, it's her parents who should have charges laid against them.
clearly she felt bad enough that she took the time to come forward
and make the statements so that his convictions were squashed.
Fair play to her, it could well be she could not do that until she got away from
her scheming family. Her parents must have coached her, they are the culpable ones.

+ 1

MagicMarker

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was 10, it's her parents who should have charges laid against them.
clearly she felt bad enough that she took the time to come forward
and make the statements so that his convictions were squashed.
Fair play to her, it could well be she could not do that until she got away from
her scheming family. Her parents must have coached her, they are the culpable ones.

I agree that her parents should be punished if they did indeed know about it.

As for her, yes she was 10 at the time, however she turned 11, 12 etc until she got to an age where the law deems that she knew the difference between right and wrong. But she's left it until she was in her 20's to come clean. She should be punished for that imo, although it probably isn't a crime.

Wagon

Parents should be prosecuted. When you're ten, you don't have a clue. She can't really be held responsable but bloody hell I have to wonder why she waited over 10 years to come clean.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cross collaborating false testimony.

She also admitted that she had never come into contact with the man, nor had any conversations with him at any stage in his life, and that she was never coerced or coached by anyone.

Nope. Guilt by accusation. Win for the Irish legal system.

The Corinthian

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nope. Guilt by accusation. Win for the Irish legal system.

It's a difficult one. On one side, you can have this sort of situation, but on the other side it can be very difficult to prove a sexual assault as there is little or no physical evidence left. As a result it often comes down to who is believed.

Unfortunately, there was (and still is) such hysteria over paedophiles at the time of that trial (Ferns was coming out in the open around then), that that a jury may have been biased towards a guilty verdict from the onset.

The parents of the girl, if not open to a criminal case, may well be looking at a civil one.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MagicMarker wrote: »

I agree that her parents should be punished if they did indeed know about it.

As for her, yes she was 10 at the time, however she turned 11, 12 etc until she got to an age where the law deems that she knew the difference between right and wrong. But she's left it until she was in her 20's to come clean. She should be punished for that imo, although it probably isn't a crime.

Its a tough one. She was probably in fear of her family, as a teenager may have blocked it out. Its understandable enough and in fairness at least she came out with the truth in the end. Would have been much worse if she left it another 10 years.

Really feel for the guy, his life was ruined, and hows he supposed to regain trust now.

seamus

MagicMarker wrote: »

I agree that her parents should be punished if they did indeed know about it.

As for her, yes she was 10 at the time, however she turned 11, 12 etc until she got to an age where the law deems that she knew the difference between right and wrong. But she's left it until she was in her 20's to come clean. She should be punished for that imo, although it probably isn't a crime.

It would indeed be quite a large crime, however she couldn't really be convicted in the same way because the offence occurred when she was a minor.

I don't know about you, but I don't remember a whole pile of what happened when I was 10/11/12. It's quite possible that the ramifications of what she did really only occurred to her recently, or that she was too afraid of her family* to say anything until she got away from them.

*You'd be shocked at the level of fear and control that many parents exercise over their kids, even well into their adulthood. Most of us would know when to tell our parents to feck off, but some people will continually give into their parents demands until the grave because of the level of fear instilled during childhood.

johnnyskeleton

Drax wrote: »

[Mods - not sure where to put this so move if necessary]I suppose nothing will happen to this girl? A man's reputation is in tatters and she gets to walk away. Would he have any case for defamation? She is now in her 20's - I wonder how she feels about lying now.

Not unless his name was published. He might have a claim against her for malicious prosecution though.

994

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not unless his name was published. He might have a claim against her for malicious prosecution though.

Doesn't matter if his name was published or not, do you honestly think word didn't get around to everyone he knew? Even now people probably still believe it "shur der's no smoke witout fire" *****.

luckat

Her parents "must have" coached her? Where is the evidence for this?

The terrible thing is that this man has had to serve prison time, and had his reputation tarnished forever.

For the woman who made the accusation when she was a child, her life has also been tarnished. She will have to live with the shame - and she clearly feels that shame - for the rest of her life. She's ruined.

The trouble isn't that her parents coached her - highly unlikely - but that she made the allegation, and in the heat of anger the whole thing got rolling and no one stopped to say "Wait - is this *really* true?"

It's the kind of thing that happens when people get angry with neighbours and don't try to negotiate. At least, it's the extreme.

Dudess

luckat wrote: »

Her parents "must have" coached her? Where is the evidence for this?... The trouble isn't that her parents coached her - highly unlikely - but that she made the allegation, and in the heat of anger the whole thing got rolling and no one stopped to say "Wait - is this *really* true?"

It's the kind of thing that happens when people get angry with neighbours and don't try to negotiate. At least, it's the extreme.

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but isn't the prospect of a 10-year-old becoming embittered over land to the point of making such an accusation... a rather unlikely one?

This man has lost a period of his life to these accusations, and tbh I would feel that both the parents and the girl should be held responsible for it. The Parents moreso since its likely that they influence the child to make the accusation based on the dispute over the land. but the girl should also be punished.

For myself, I feel the parents should have to serve the same prison time the man served, and pay the man the complete amount of monies he would have earned had he remained free. Also they would be required to make a public apology in the newspaper & to the people of the neighbourhood. The girl should receive a lighter sentence requiring her to work (community service) with a rape crisis center so she would actually know what she was talking about.

That man will never be able to hold his head high free of gossip and rumormongering in that area of Ireland. No father or mother will be completely sure of him dating his daughter, regardless of this declaration of innocence.

I'm curious will his pernament record show that he served time in prison or will this be removed? This is important if he wanted to move away and work in another country...

Phototoxin

Deleted User wrote: »

That man will never be able to hold his head high free of gossip and rumormongering in that area of Ireland. No father or mother will be completely sure of him dating his daughter, regardless of this declaration of innocence.

well that's their problem. However it scares me that my dad is in the following mentality;

Doesn't matter if his name was published or not, do you honestly think word didn't get around to everyone he knew? Even now people probably still believe it "shur der's no smoke witout fire" *****.

Mingey

I don't think the girl should be punished. She should be commended for coming forward. I know it is 10 years later, maybe she was waiting until she was 18, or moving away from her family, who knows? I definately think there should be an inquiry and the family punished for what they did. It's despicable that they used the girl and the man.

Deleted User wrote: »

For myself, I feel the parents should have to serve the same prison time the man served, and pay the man the complete amount of monies he would have earned had he remained free. Also they would be required to make a public apology in the newspaper & to the people of the neighbourhood. The girl should receive a lighter sentence requiring her to work (community service) with a rape crisis center so she would actually know what she was talking about.

I think this would be a good idea. But I am not in favour of 'punishing' the girl. She is a victim in all of this too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mingey wrote: »

I don't think the girl should be punished. She should be commended for coming forward. I know it is 10 years later, maybe she was waiting until she was 18, or moving away from her family, who knows? I definately think there should be an inquiry and the family punished for what they did. It's despicable that they used the girl and the man.



I think this would be a good idea. But I am not in favour of 'punishing' the girl. She is a victim in all of this too.

The fvck she is! She is in her 20s now and the idea that this is wrong didn't just hit her two days ago. Commended, my arse. Also, at 10 years old, YOU KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG even if you are not capable of being convicted of it.

How do you know the family is behind this? Will they be taken to trial? With the same legal ssytem that convicted a man of sexual assualt of a girl he's never even spoken to?

The Corinthian

Mingey wrote: »

I think this would be a good idea. But I am not in favour of 'punishing' the girl. She is a victim in all of this too.

Actually, we don't know if she is a victim. Maybe she was and maybe not.

There's actually a fair bit of speculation here, and people are blaming her parents or her delay at admitting her falsehood even though they are not in full possession of the facts.

Perhaps she was her parents' pawn in all of this and feared for her saftey untill well into her twenties when she finally felt she could do the right thing. On the other hand, perhaps she took it upon herself to do this and should have admitted her guilt years before. Perhaps she's only admitting her guilt because the truth was about to come out anyway. Who knows?

The only question now is why she delayed for so long, as she was an adult during that time. If she was truly in fear for her family's reaction, then I would understand. If it was procrastination and selfishness, then she should be punished for it.

But either way, it is wrong to assume anything.

Tweeter

Agree with most of the sentiment in here and some punishment should be dished out to the girl and her family.
But the real tragedy here is the next 10 year old who comes forward who has actually been abused and not making it up. Who the fcuk is going to believe her? And the scumbag who done it will have his barristers citing this case at every opportunity during the trial.
This girl has dented the justice system for the real victims.

seamus

Dudess wrote: »

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but isn't the prospect of a 12-year-old becoming embittered over land to the point of making such an accusation... a rather unlikely one?

Even more, the prospect of a 12-year-old being able to invent a story of sexual abuse which would be believable and consistent is even more unlikely. 10 year olds aren't clueless about sex, but I sincerely doubt most of them know enough to concot what must have been an almost airtight story about sexual assault, out of thin air.

Nasty_Girl

How about a four year suspended sentence ....

The Corinthian

Tweeter wrote: »

Agree with most of the sentiment in here and some punishment should be dished out to the girl and her family.
But the real tragedy here is the next 10 year old who comes forward who has actually been abused and not making it up. Who the fcuk is going to believe her? And the scumbag who done it will have his barristers citing this case at every opportunity during the trial.
This girl has dented the justice system for the real victims.

Yes, but this is the case for any miscarriage of justice. The process is not airtight and all to prone to popularism - especially if a jury is involved - and when evidence is inconclusive and it falls to simply believing one side or the other, such mistakes can be made.

As long as the laws protecting both accused and victim are just, the rest is up to us.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, but this is the case for any miscarriage of justice. The process is not airtight and all to prone to popularism - especially if a jury is involved - and when evidence is inconclusive and it falls to simply believing one side or the other, such mistakes can be made.

As long as the laws protecting both accused and victim are just, the rest is up to us.

If this is the case, then the prosecution has NOT proven it's case so the defendant should have been found NOT guilty.

This is why we have a legal system based on the ideal of innocent until PROVEN guilty.

seamus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If this is the case, then the prosecution has NOT proven it's case so the defendant should have been found NOT guilty.

Well that's up to the jury to decide. Juries are normally stacked slightly biased towards the victim and the younger or more vulnerable and more innocent the victim, the stronger their biase. In this case they may very well have thought that there's no way a 12-year-old could give such detailed and damning testimony (assuming it was that) if the acts in question had not taken place.
Clearly they were wrong. That's the price we pay for such a system - mistakes will always be made.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

Well that's up to the jury to decide. Juries are normally stacked slightly biased towards the victim and the younger or more vulnerable and more innocent the victim, the stronger their biase.

Not always. Juries are normal people with little or no legal knowledge. Indeed 'officers of the law' (solicitors, barristers, etc) are barred from jury duty.

Additionally, juries are composed of those who did not get out of it or even try to, which means that you will tend to get jurors who are unemployed, clerical level civil servants, students, retired, etc.

So put people like that in an often complex and emotive case and then expect them to be dispassionate about it and see what happens. This is why jury selection is strategically so important to both sides in cases.

The Shannon vandalism case was an example of this. A few born-again types break into Shannon, cause some damage to some US planes parked there and get off scot free. They broke the law, there's no question of that, but ultimately it was the relevant public opinion against the Shannon stopover that was reflected in the jury's decision.

Same could be said for what happened to the man at the centre of this case - remember that this case took place in the backdrop of Fr Fortune and all the other Ferns scandals. That wouldn't have helped him.

That's the problem with juries - of course, trial by judge isn't much better given half of them are clinically insane megalomaniacs.

Mingey

Ok, the reason for the 10 year gap may be questionable. Commended may be a strong word, but at least she came forward. I still don't think this girl went about giving a false accusation purely out of her own steam.

seamus

Mingey wrote: »

Ok, the reason for the 10 year gap may be questionable. Commended may be a strong word, but at least she came forward. I still don't think this girl went about giving a false accusation purely out of her own steam.

You also have to remember that the guy got a four-year suspended sentence. So the girl's parents may very well have convinced her that nothing bad really came of it - the guy never went to jail and "learned not to mess with us". Indeed, the ramifications of having any kind of conviction (especially a sexual one), jail or not, could very well be lost on someone until their 20's.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Well that's up to the jury to decide. Juries are normally stacked slightly biased towards the victim and the younger or more vulnerable and more innocent the victim, the stronger their biase. In this case they may very well have thought that there's no way a 12-year-old could give such detailed and damning testimony (assuming it was that) if the acts in question had not taken place.
Clearly they were wrong. That's the price we pay for such a system - mistakes will always be made.

Ture, but in the Corinthian's post, he implied that a given situation (any situation - not specifically this one) was the prosectution's word against the defendant's.

Mistakes will be made, we're human, but there was no concrete evidence to convict. There can't have been if the parties never met - and the times being hysterical towards sexual crime is NOT an acceptable excuse.

What, now, will be done in the way of rigthing the wrong? Will there be compensation awarded? Will the parents face trial?

seamus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Mistakes will be made, we're human, but there was no concrete evidence to convict. There can't have been if the parties never met - and the times being hysterical towards sexual crime is NOT an acceptable excuse.

Oh, I'm not making any excuses for it, but I can't see how it could have been avoided (other than obviously the parents not making it up in the first place). Sometimes it is just one person's word against another. It wouldn't be fair on either party to strike it out simply because this is the case.
That is, if the guy is guilty then you're ignoring the victim's side, but if the guy is not guilty, you leave something of a loose thread hanging out which will damage his reputation. So on the face of it, making a decision on the case seems to be the right thing to do for everyone, as the justice system assumes that the right decision will be made based on the evidence available.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Oh, I'm not making any excuses for it, but I can't see how it could have been avoided (other than obviously the parents not making it up in the first place). Sometimes it is just one person's word against another. It wouldn't be fair on either party to strike it out simply because this is the case.
That is, if the guy is guilty then you're ignoring the victim's side, but if the guy is not guilty, you leave something of a loose thread hanging out which will damage his reputation. So on the face of it, making a decision on the case seems to be the right thing to do for everyone, as the justice system assumes that the right decision will be made based on the evidence available.

Cold hard facts says that yes it does have to be thrown out if not proven.

johnnyskeleton

994 wrote: »

Doesn't matter if his name was published or not, do you honestly think word didn't get around to everyone he knew? Even now people probably still believe it "shur der's no smoke witout fire" *****.

I was replying to the OP's question about whether he could bring a defamation case. You can't sue for libel or slander unless you can point to a specific defamatory comment made by a specific person (among the other myriad difficulties in a defamation case). I made nor make no comment as regards the effect on the falsely accused in this case.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

Even more, the prospect of a 12-year-old being able to invent a story of sexual abuse which would be believable and consistent is even more unlikely. 10 year olds aren't clueless about sex, but I sincerely doubt most of them know enough to concot what must have been an almost airtight story about sexual assault, out of thin air.

You'd be surprised. In fact, it could well have been this assumption which led the jury to falsely convict him.

The Corinthian

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ture, but in the Corinthian's post, he implied that a given situation (any situation - not specifically this one) was the prosectution's word against the defendant's.

I wouldn't go that far. Many cases have more than enough direct and circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction or aquittal without anyone taking the stand. My understanding is, however, in cases of sexual assault, it tends to come down to believing one of two people because there is often no evidence at all.

What, now, will be done in the way of rigthing the wrong? Will there be compensation awarded? Will the parents face trial?

His record can be expunged and he could have his legal costs awarded. The state is not liable though as it did carry out a trial properly.

The parents could be liable, as could she for the delay in her confession - you're legally responsible at 17, so waiting almost ten years could be actionable. I suspect there is a statute of limitations on any criminal, if not civil, action however.