Women walks away scot free after admitting making up sexual assault allegations

j1smithy

Back to the original allegation, the Stay Safe programme was launched for youngsters at around the time of the reported incident. <SNIP> Serious questions need to be asked of the investigating team though as i'm sure there were holes in her story. Though the team probably took a gently gently approach as she was only 10, had no reason to doubt her, and the alleged perp would have had a motive. This case shows that a new approach is required when it comes to interviewing child witnesses and victims, to ensure the truthfulness of the claims. I wonder was a psychologist present at the time of the childs interview?

Should she serve time for her false report of assault? Well it depends and is certainly not clear cut. If she was coerced well those responsible should do time. If not well I'm not too sure, while the 10 year old probably knew it was wrong to lie, it is unlikely she understood the seriousness of the claims she was making and that it had the potential to completely ruin his life.

To the OP, whats the difference between free and scot free??? Sensationalism in AH... never!

ilkhanid

Unless, my memory is seriously defective I remember a case-might not be in Ireland- years ago where a woman falsely accused a man of rape and was found out. I have no recollection of her being charged with perjury, or even of wasting police time. In fact some women had sympathy for her,not the man.:mad: They were coming out with stuff about how her false claim was a sigh of her disturbed mental state and how she needed help and understanding, not condemnation. I 'd say that would make many men feel very bitter. I certainly did.

Calibos

Christ on a bike. Its page thirteen and there are still posters coming into the thread and saying, "You know what....I think she might have been coached"

If the latest info about at least 1 Garda being informed the allegations were false 8 years ago. Well he/she should get all the punishment recommended by all the previous posters for the girl in question. Turns out the kid may have done the right thing back at an age when she would have gotten Kudos for it.

Jaysus though, what is it with the Guards up in the North West!!

Fanny Cradock

If it's true that she retracted her statement (or attempted to) year before and nothing was done about it then it clearly is a miscarriage of justice.

drunkmonkey

I presume in a case like this a medical professional or garda would have to testify that there were injurys or marks on the child, did someone testify or did everybody just take the kid at face value?

<SNIP>

dan719

I'm being compared on the internet to the killers of Jamie Bulger

Someone reads boards.ie.:rolleyes:

Nodin

Caoimhín wrote: »

She should spend the same time in jail as he did.

....because the actions of a 10 year old should be subject to the full weight of the law? I think not.

<SNIP>

Zulu

It appears she happy to face any charges that may be brought against her.
Kudos.

Gran Hermano

If a person is old enough to testify and give evidence they should be old enough to face the implications of making false accusations.

Boston

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I presume in a case like this a medical professional or garda would have to testify that there were injurys or marks on the child, did someone testify or did everybody just take the kid at face value?

What on earth makes you presume that.

Jonty

So, is this innocent man still on the sex offender's register, and if he has been removed, is there still a record of him being on it??

Serena08

Jonty wrote: »

So, is this innocent man still on the sex offender's register, and if he has been removed, is there still a record of him being on it??

If it has taken this long to clear his name I can only assume if indeed he is on a sex offenders list he has another battle on his hands in getting that record corrected :eek:

javaboy

Please stick to the facts when posting. There is no proof that she was coerced by anyone to tell lies.

Cath09

<SNIP> I will post a link to it.
Also, anything told on Gerry Ryan this morning was fact. Only for his sister bumped into that girl in a petrol station, he would never have known the girl came back to retract her statement. The Gards were in no hurry to knock on his door to tell him or apologize for this serious miscarraige of justice!.

Eddie Yu

javaboy wrote: »

Please stick to the facts when posting. There is no proof that she was coerced by anyone to tell lies.

This statement is a clear indication of the ignorance of the public in these type of cases due to the infamous "in camera" rule. Also there is no proof that she was not coached by anyone. There can be no doubt but that the young lady would have had so called "experts" giving social work and psychological reports to the court.

Eddie Yu.

charliesboots

Eddie Yu wrote: »

There can be no doubt but that the young lady would have had so called "experts" giving social work and psychological reports to the court.

Eddie Yu.

How can there be no doubt that social workers or psychological reports given to the Court?

Have you seen the transcripts?

Zulu

two first-time posters...


...well I never!

javaboy

Eddie Yu wrote: »

This statement is a clear indication of the ignorance of the public in these type of cases due to the infamous "in camera" rule.

No it's not an indication of any ignorance due to the "in camera" rule or otherwise. It is a simple direction to posters on this site to avoid posting things that may cause legal trouble.

Also there is no proof that she was not coached by anyone.

It doesn't work that way.

There can be no doubt but that the young lady would have had so called "experts" giving social work and psychological reports to the court.

Probably given her age and the nature of the case. That does not amount to coercing her to tell lies.

My original direction still stands.

Thanks

Eddie Yu

charliesboots wrote: »

How can there be no doubt that social workers or psychological reports given to the Court?

Have you seen the transcripts?

No need to. Experience and having been in the same position as Mr Hannon and having gone through a £5,000,000 Inquiry into false accusations of child sexual abuse conducted by the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council is a good teacher.

Eddie Yu

charliesboots

Eddie Yu wrote: »

No need to. Experience and having been in the same position as Mr Hannon and having gone through a £5,000,000 Inquiry into false accusations of child sexual abuse conducted by the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council is a good teacher.

Eddie Yu

Huge difference between a tribunal of inquiry and a criminal trial.

There was no psychologist called at the trial or assessment of the girl.

The DPP took the decision to prosecute on her word alone despite the continued denial of Mr. Hannon himself as he explained on Gerry Ryan this morning.

Eddie Yu

charliesboots wrote: »

Huge difference between a tribunal of inquiry and a criminal trial.

There was no psychologist called at the trial or assessment of the girl.

The DPP took the decision to prosecute on her word alone despite the continued denial of Mr. Hannon himself as he explained on Gerry Ryan this morning.

Please explain the difference between the two - both carry the same weight of evidence, - beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eddie Yu

Eddie Yu

charliesboots wrote: »

Huge difference between a tribunal of inquiry and a criminal trial.

There was no psychologist called at the trial or assessment of the girl.

The DPP took the decision to prosecute on her word alone despite the continued denial of Mr. Hannon himself as he explained on Gerry Ryan this morning.

I did not say "experts" were called - there would have been reports.

Eddie Yu

charliesboots

Eddie Yu wrote: »

I did not say "experts" were called - there would have been reports.

Eddie Yu

There simply wasn't a psychological assessment done on the girl at the time.

Her lie was accepted and she caught the Gardai, DPP and the jury hook, line and sinker.

There are rules of evidence and disclosure in criminal trials which may be distinct from tribunals of inquiry.

One of the issues that arose in the CCA last week was whether the DPP was obliged to stand over his witnesses at trial and accept a degree of responsibility should something like this happen.

It's a topic that hasn't really been explored in Irish law but its firmly established in other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

maxxie

Lock her up and throw away the key! She ruined an innocent mans life!
****ing garda, you cant drive down the road without them pulling you over for nothing but yet this scumbag walks in tells them what she did and they let her walk free!! Only in Ireland.

charliesboots

Just in case anybody is interested and has a bit of spare time - here's the judgment

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/2F6AF8739574EDEE802575A5004D6CA3?opendocument

Eddie Yu

charliesboots wrote: »

There simply wasn't a psychological assessment done on the girl at the time.

Her lie was accepted and she caught the Gardai, DPP and the jury hook, line and sinker.

There are rules of evidence and disclosure in criminal trials which may be distinct from tribunals of inquiry.

One of the issues that arose in the CCA last week was whether the DPP was obliged to stand over his witnesses at trial and accept a degree of responsibility should something like this happen.

It's a topic that hasn't really been explored in Irish law but its firmly established in other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

3 questions: 1. Why no assessment?. 2. Why did the Gardai, the DPP and the jury fall "hook" "Line and sinker" for her story? 3. Was there a victim impact statement?

Further, the rules of evidence in criminal cases before the courts are the same as the rules of evidence in a Medical Council Inquiry i.e. the Fitness to Practise Committee have the same powers as the High Court.

Finally, the similarities between this case and the Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe case are alarming and disturbing.

Eddie Yu

Eddie Yu wrote: »

3 questions: 1. Why no assessment?. 2. Why did the Gardai, the DPP and the jury fall "hook" "Line and sinker" for her story? 3. Was there a victim impact statement?

Further, the rules of evidence in criminal cases before the courts are the same as the rules of evidence in a Medical Council Inquiry i.e. the Fitness to Practise Committee have the same powers as the High Court.

Finally, the similarities between this case and the Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe case are alarming and disturbing.

It is worth noting that the great "expert" and leading light of the Rape Crisis Centre one Dr Moira Wods has been air-brushed from Irish History.

charliesboots

Eddie Yu wrote: »

3 questions: 1. Why no assessment?. 2. Why did the Gardai, the DPP and the jury fall "hook" "Line and sinker" for her story? 3. Was there a victim impact statement?

The first two are the great unknowns. On the third there was no victim impact statement per se.

The simple fact is that there was no other evidence other than her word against his and yet the jury still convicted.

It goes to show the difficult position an accused is in when allegations are made and go to trial, particularly when a child is involved

walshb

"The applicant, Mr. Hannon, was born on the 14th August, 1975 and was accordingly some twenty-two years old at the time of the alleged assaults. He is now about thirty-four years of age."

Eh, no, he is not about 34 years of age. How can they be so blase with an important and provable fact. They know his birth date and then they speculate his current age? The guy is 33 years of age.

Another thing I noticed was the fact that the guy got a suspended sentence, now I know he "WAS" innocent, but at the time, he was officially
gulity, why a suspended sentence for such a serious crime?

I tell you, I bet future cases of guilt will be pointing to this case when the guilty party is hoping for a non custodial sentence. "Well, how come a "guilty" man in 1997 received a non custodial sentence for an offence similar to mine."
That will be the plea!

Eddie Yu

charliesboots wrote: »

The first two are the great unknowns. On the third there was no victim impact statement per se.

The simple fact is that there was no other evidence other than her word against his and yet the jury still convicted.

It goes to show the difficult position an accused is in when allegations are made and go to trial, particularly when a child is involved

It is even more difficult when a person is accused by an "expert" and supported by other "experts" but is denied his right to a trial, be it a fair or unjust trial. For people like me, unlike Mr Hannon who had the 'luxury' of a trial, I have stood falsely accused of incest, child sexual abuse and cruelty to a child for the past 22 years. Even though my accuser was found guilty of professional misconduct I still stand accused. Even though the Department of Health rocognises that an injustice may have occurred in my case and in the case of other innocent men, we still stand accused. Bear in mind that in the hierarchy of human and fundamental rights the right to a trial and a fair trial is antecedent to all other rights including the righs to prosecution. 'The DPP on LiveLine with Marian Finucane some years ago.'

Would you not agree that there has been Moral Panic and Media Hysteria regarding Child Sexual Abuse leading to a withhunt against innocent men?