Man cleared of sex assault: Anonymity should be a right

leonidas83

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-sex-assault-anonymity-should-be-a-right-230214.html

A man cleared of sexual assault said his name should never have been made public and called for the law to be changed

Speaking outside court, Eamon Power said the accused in sex assault cases should have the same right to anonymity as the alleged victim until they have been found guilty.

Mr Power, a 35-year-old from Limerick, was unanimously found not guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl after two hours of deliberation.

Crying openly after the verdict, Mr Power said his life had been hell since the allegations surfaced three years ago. He could not get work and his health suffered.

“People have been coming up to me and calling me a scumbag. My name is on the paper, which it should not be. I think it was completely wrong and they should be able to do something about that. I have no previous convictions ever. I have nothing ever against me.

“At least it’s over now.”

His former girlfriend, Geraldine Carey, who gave defence evidence during the trial said: “I know Eamon. I was in a relationship with him for eight years, and know him inside out; an absolute gentleman. Eamon is the kind of man, if anybody called and were stuck, he’d drop what he was doing. He is a gentleman.

“I think it is outrageous it came to court and these allegations were taken into consideration, that this could possibly happen. It’s a pure disgrace.”

She said when they left the court on Tuesday they heard his name on the radio.

“Eamon Power, his name, address, that he was charged with three sexual assaults of a minor going back.”

His sister Nuala said a sexual allegation was the lowest of the low and as a result her brother could not get work. The family had to live the nightmare day in day out, she said.

The alleged victim, who is now aged 19, told the trial Mr Power unzipped her jeans when giving her a driving lesson.

She claimed the incident happened on the October bank holiday weekend in 2008 after Mr Power drove her to an industrial estate in Kilmallock.

In two previous incidents she claimed the accused attempted to place his hand on her breast when visiting her house with his then girlfriend, Ms Carey.

Garda Marie Tuohy said that during interviews Mr Power repeatedly denied the girl’s allegations.

The jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts on all three counts



Too right, its about time the powers that be had a look at this, disgraceful that an innocent person can be hounded like this.

NIMAN

Yeah he has a point, as a certain amount of mud will always stick.

Sky King

What happens to the alleged 'victim'? Nothing?

fullstop

If he's innocent then the accuser should be made an example of.

WayneMolloy

Can he sue her for damages to his good name?

If so, he should be entitled to a percentage of all her future earnings.

bruschi

an american football player in America was accused, and spent 5 years in jail until his accuser admitted she lied.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/04/brian-banks-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/preps/football/story/2012-05-24/brian-banks-rape-conviction-overturned/55192420/1


the school district paid her $750,000 in compensation, and is now looking for it and legal fees back.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2013/04/15/31355/wrongful-accuser-of-brian-banks-facing-1-million-p/

it has arguably cost him millions with years missed playing college and NFL, never mind the mental anguish and the 'mud sticks' stigma attached to it. a horrible thing to accuse someone of, and it makes a mockery of women who have been assaulted and makes it harder for them to come forward.

Gatling

Not seen the other thread on this in here

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056939710/6/#post84449048

zenno

A prison sentence should have been handed to that person for making false allegations, that is a nasty thing to do to a man.

Pilotdude5

Down in Kerry a while back a girl accused a 16-year old guy of rape. He was murdered while walking home one night after his name was spread around. The girl later admitted she made up the whole rape story.

I do think names should be withheld until proven guilty.

Edit: old thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565270

eviltwin

How do you know in cases like this the person was found not guilty because of a false allegation or because there wasn't enough evidence to convict? A non conviction doesn't always mean innocent.

zenno

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Down in Kerry a while back a girl accused a 16-year old guy of rape. He was murdered while walking home one night after his name was spread around. The girl later admitted she made up the whole rape story.

I do think names should be withheld until proven guilty.

Absolutely.

bruschi

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know in cases like this the person was found not guilty because of a false allegation or because there wasn't enough evidence to convict? A non conviction doesn't always mean innocent.

so what? guilty until proven innocent? ridiculous

no one should have their names released if they are found unanimously not guilty, and especially before any case has been heard.

tritium

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know in cases like this the person was found not guilty because of a false allegation or because there wasn't enough evidence to convict? A non conviction doesn't always mean innocent.

Does that mean we should name every suspect, because otherwise we might miss a few guilty ones? From a legal point of view a not guilty verdict is just that, and frankly your post stinks of the "no smoke without fire" mentality that pervades Irish commentary.

eviltwin

bruschi wrote: »

so what? guilty until proven innocent? ridiculous

no one should have their names released if they are found unanimously not guilty, and especially before any case has been heard.

I agree no names should ever be released unless the person is found guilty but I would be wary of assuming someone who is found innocent was accused in the wrong and then sending the accuser to jail for a false allegation.

PeakOutput

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know in cases like this the person was found not guilty because of a false allegation or because there wasn't enough evidence to convict? A non conviction doesn't always mean innocent.

Thats exactly what it means, everyone is innocent until they are convicted

IvySlayer

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know in cases like this the person was found not guilty because of a false allegation or because there wasn't enough evidence to convict? A non conviction doesn't always mean innocent.

It means a court declared him innocent of the charges that were brought against him. The victim should be named and shamed, and the man suing her for defamation.

eviltwin

IvySlayer wrote: »

It means a court declared him innocent of the charges that were brought against him.

But is it right to automatically assume the accuser was lying?

ScumLord

I don't know how you really can make it anonymous, it is a court of the people after all. I'm sure if it was completely anonymous you'd have people complaining that we don't know if justice is really being done.

I think the newspapers should be held to account for gutter journalism where they publicly condemn people with no facts.

Another thing that would help is fast trials. Waiting 3 years for a court case where the accused is going to be considered guilty until cleared is bul****. The courts in this country move way too slow. The only people that benefit from these prolonged court proceedings is the solicitors and I think they delay it on purpose to increase their own profits. The solicitors are basically like the mob looking to get their cut out of everything that happens in the country.

WayneMolloy

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree no names should ever be released unless the person is found guilty but I would be wary of assuming someone who is found innocent was accused in the wrong and then sending the accuser to jail for a false allegation.

If the accuser is found to be lying, then they should face some sort of punishment.

Accusations of this nature sully a mans good name for life.

jaffacakesyum

The alleged rapists name should most definitely remain anonymous until/if proven guilty.

However, just because he is not proven guilty doesn't mean he is innocent, although it should be assumed as such. But for that reason, I don't think the alleged victim should be fined or jailed unless it is proven that it is a false accusation i.e. a confession is given. In that case, very harsh fines or jail sentences are needed in my opinion. False accusations are simply disgusting.

IvySlayer

eviltwin wrote: »

But is it right to automatically assume the accuser was lying?

The jury thinks so, good enough for me. Why shouldn't the ''victim'' be named?

ScumLord

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

However, just because he is not proven guilty doesn't mean he is innocent, although it should be assumed as such. But for that reason, I don't think the alleged victim should be fined or jailed unless it is proven that it is a false accusation i.e. a confession is given.

It would be very hard to get a confession out of someone if they know they're going to go to jail if they confess.

Steve O

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

The alleged rapists name should most definitely remain anonymous until/if proven guilty.

However, just because he is not proven guilty doesn't mean he is innocent, although it should be assumed as such. But for that reason, I don't think the alleged victim should be fined or jailed unless it is proven that it is a false accusation i.e. a confession is given. In that case, very harsh fines or jail sentences are needed in my opinion. False accusations are simply disgusting.

So let me get this straight. The man has to prove he isn't guilty THEN prove it was a false accusation?

zenno

Well, there's a broken man. I wish him the best of luck in trying to gather his life back together, i wish him the best.

jaffacakesyum

Steve O wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The man has to prove he isn't guilty THEN prove it was a false accusation?

Yes. If you want to convict somebody of a crime (false accusation) you have to prove it on the available evidence. You can't just assume somebody is guilty of false accusation, any more so than you can assume somebody is guilty of rape. What's so difficult about that to understand?

I was raped and it didn't even get to court. So if it did get to court the men likely would have been found not guilty (seeing as the DPP obviously didn't feel the case was strong enough to get to court in the first place). Does this mean that I should be automatically sent to jail? You have to prove that the person is making a false accusation, same way you have to prove any other crime.

allym

It's a hard one I think. Obviously this man (and others like him) don't deserve to have their lives ruined by someone else's lies.

However, in certain cases the name being released could encourage other victims to come forward and help to build a stronger case. If, for example, one girl accused a guy of sexually assaulting her but there was no evidence or witnesses, it would be a pretty weak case against him and he may not be convicted even though he's guilty. But if in the time before the case came to court another victim came forward because she heard of this, it would obviously be a stronger case and could prevent a potentially dangerous person being let back out on the streets to assault someone else. Although maybe I'm wrong on that?

I do think if someone's found to have been lying that they're should be some criminal charges brought against them. It's such an awful thing to do to someone.

jaffacakesyum

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be very hard to get a confession out of someone if they know they're going to go to jail if they confess.

I agree. But how else do you prove a false accusation? Basically what I'm saying, confession or not, you have to prove it is a false accusation. This would, I imagine, be very difficult to do, without a confession unless in a obvious example of that there is a clear lack of proximity eg the accused wasn't even in the country at the time of the allegation etc. In cases where its proven, of course there should be punishment for the false accusor.

Steve O

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yes. If you want to convict somebody of a crime (false accusation) you have to prove it on the available evidence. You can't just assume somebody is guilty of false accusation, any more so than you can assume somebody is guilty of rape. What's so difficult about that to understand?

I was raped and it didn't even get to court. So if it did get to court the men likely would have been found not guilty (seeing as the DPP obviously didn't feel the case was strong enough to get to court in the first place). Does this mean that I should be automatically sent to jail? You have to prove that the person is making a false accusation, same way you have to prove any other crime.

K.

Sorry to hear you went through that, but the guy was proven not guilty unanimously by a jury. He shouldn't need to further prove his innocence.

Your case didnt even make it to court which is a disgrace

eviltwin

Steve O wrote: »

K.

Sorry to hear you went through that, but the guy was proven not guilty unanimously by a jury. He shouldn't need to further prove his innocence.

Your case didnt even make it to court which is a disgrace

Your right, he shouldn't. However, the person who brought him to court can't be assumed to be a liar either. My brother is a sex offender, he was found not guilty although I know he is, his victim isn't a liar and has enough to deal with without being branded one. The not guilty in his case was due to a lack of evidence, it didn't mean it didn't happen.

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

zenno

What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

tritium

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

The alleged rapists name should most definitely remain anonymous until/if proven guilty.

However, just because he is not proven guilty doesn't mean he is innocent, although it should be assumed as such. But for that reason, I don't think the alleged victim should be fined or jailed unless it is proven that it is a false accusation i.e. a confession is given. In that case, very harsh fines or jail sentences are needed in my opinion. False accusations are simply disgusting.

I think this is a pretty fundamental point. If teres a concern that a false allegation has been made then it should be investigated, and if appropriate prosecuted. However the person involved would have to enjoy the same presumption of innocence that any accused person has.

That said if the names of the originally accused weren't a matter if public record the fall out is far less damaging

who_me

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.

That's why I think it's incredibly difficult to call this. It's a horrible situation for the victim bringing a genuine case and for the defendant defending against a false one.

Odysseus

zenno wrote: »

What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

Nil, what do you think the media had done that is illegal? Sadly nothing, which is why it would be best if they where not allowed to publish names.

awec

There is a stigma associated with sex related cases that sticks even when the person is cleared.

For that reason, everyone should remain anonymous until they are found guilty. When they are guilty by all means publicly name and shame them.

It is outrageous that innocent people can have their name slurred and be found innocent in the end.

Unless it is clear that the accuser was being deceitful they should face no action. But anyone who is found to have deliberately falsely accused someone of rape should be named, shamed and have the book thrown at them. That is such a scummy thing to do.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

Nil, what do you think the media had done that is illegal? Sadly nothing, which is why it would be best if they where not allowed to publish names.

I haven't seen the story in a paper but from anything I've read in a newspaper they tend to refer to people as "sick monsters" and other emotive language. If they condemned him or attacked his character in any way surely he'd have grounds to sue.

Odysseus

who_me wrote: »

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.

That's why I think it's incredibly difficult to call this. It's a horrible situation for the victim bringing a genuine case and for the defendant defending against a false one.

No the court has show shown that there is nothing to prove that this man committed this act.

That does not mean the alledged victim was lying, it mean she could not prove he raped her, it does not show she lied. That would be a totally different matter.

If I was attacked by somerone tonight and named a person and the court found the not guilty; it does not mean I lied. It means it could not be proved, if there is proff that I lied then it becomes a different case.

No one would take a case against another person if they where deemed to be guilty of lieing based on a lack of evidence or the person getting off for other reasons.

Again this is why the media should not be allowed to name people.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

I haven't seen the story in a paper but from anything I've read in a newspaper they tend to refer to people as "sick monsters" and other emotive language. If they condemned him or attacked his character in any way surely he'd have grounds to sue.

Isn't such language usually only used post conviction?

Arcsin

You have to consider that if anyone ever googles this mans name, reports on this case will be the top result that will be found. That is going to stick with him forever.

There has already been posters on this thread hinting that there's no smoke without fire. There will be plenty of that in his own community too. It will be very hard for him to recover from this.

As other posters said not being convicted doesn't necessarily mean the victim is lying. However it should be rigourously investigated if there is any hint that this is the case and he/she should be prosecuted if sufficient evidence is found.

No system will ever be totally anonymous anyway. The only thing the courts can do is stop reporting of a persons name. Local communities will be well aware of identities of people involved.

Even courts.ie publishes the names of defendants in the Legal Diary section, including those who's named cant be reported. It's not difficult to find out the name of the defendant in any case.

Ficheall

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

Surely he was "found" or "deemed" not guilty or somesuch, as opposed to "proven"?
If it were "proven" that he were not guilty, then that does imply that the victim was lying, no?


Perhaps the accuser should now be named?

Gatling

The accuser should be named

who_me

Odysseus wrote: »

No the court has show shown that there is nothing to prove that this man committed this act.

That does not mean the alledged victim was lying, it mean she could not prove he raped her, it does not show she lied. That would be a totally different matter.

If I was attacked by somerone tonight and named a person and the court found the not guilty; it does not mean I lied. It means it could not be proved, if there is proff that I lied then it becomes a different case.

No one would take a case against another person if they where deemed to be guilty of lieing based on a lack of evidence or the person getting off for other reasons.

Again this is why the media should not be allowed to name people.

You're right - and perhaps I over-simplified in my post - but a problem remains.

If you treat "found innocent" as "is innocent of the crime", then the alleged victim must have been guilty of lying.

If you treat "found innocent" as "possibly guilty, but insufficient evidence exists to convict", then you end up with the defendant being acquitted yet still has a stigma hanging over them.

It's a horrible situation.

Killer Wench

How do we know she was lying? From reading the article in the OP, did it say it was shown her allegations were false? Or maybe just that the prosecutor did not meet the burden?

tritium

Gatling wrote: »

The accuser should be named

No they shouldn't! Neither party should be named until conviction for committing a crime has been obtained

grizzly

As others have said, being found not guilty could just mean that there is not sufficient evidence to convict. This does not automatically mean she is a liar.

BattleCorp

who_me wrote: »

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.
.

Picture this scenario.

Supposing I rape you.

There are no witnesses and I leave no DNA because I wore protection etc etc etc.

If you go to the cops, maybe they will prosecute me and the case goes to court.

In court you need to produce evidence. At that stage it's your word against mine unless there is some other evidence that you can come up with.

I get 3 of my friends to lie and say I was with them at the time of the attack. You now have no evidence whatsoever and I have an alibi.

Because of lack of evidence I get found not guilty.

I have now been found not guilty so does that make you a liar?????



That said, I still agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

BattleCorp

zenno wrote: »

What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

What can he sue the media for? They just reported on a case that's in the public domain, i.e. a public courtroom.

belcampprisoner

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty


in this computer age you cant hide anything,

justice should not be hidden,


if your doing interviews outside the court steps your name is going to stay in the papers

GalwayGuy2

No, an accuser shouldn't be jailed or named in my opinion. It would increase the fear that a genuine rape victim would feel. It really is a messy situation, and I don't think anybody should be named.

But, it really is strange to read so many posts saying that he may still be guilty. It's reminiscent of victim blaming tbh.

fran17

belcampprisoner wrote: »

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty


in this computer age you cant hide anything,

justice should not be hidden,


if your doing interviews outside the court steps your name is going to stay in the papers

so does that mean that a percentage of the people convicted are innocent?

BattleCorp

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

No, an accuser shouldn't be jailed or named in my opinion. It would increase the fear that a genuine rape victim would feel. It really is a messy situation, and I don't think anybody should be named.

But, it really is strange to read so many posts saying that he may still be guilty. It's reminiscent of victim blaming tbh.

I'm not saying he is guilty in my post. I am just saying that "somebody" could be found innocent even though they did the crime. That doesn't make the accuser a liar.

He was found not guilty in court and that's good enough for me.

The accused should not be named unless there is a guilty verdict. Mud sticks, as they say. And then if he/she is guilty, their names should be plastered everywhere. It's not fair to name the person unless they are found guilty.