Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one
Options
Comments
-
Just because you do something disgusting in the privacy or just because you have private conversation you can't assume it will stay private unless you talking to a solicitor, priest or doctor where there is guarantee of confidentiality. And even then it can be abused. What is the issue?You can judge these men because their private conversations were disclosed in public, this was an awful lot worse for them than having their boxers used as evidence would be. The facts are if you asked a random selection of men to hand over their phones after a night out you would find similar messages, get over it.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Terrible idea. You can't just invent terms and force them into common use. The vast majority of people manage to have sex without there ever being issues of consent.
So we only need to educate young men? Gay men get to skip this class I take it?
I don't know where you have gotten this perspective from. If this is your take on sex you either aren't having it or you are having it with poorly chosen partners.
Jesus.
Honestly, this post is full of presumption, sexism and some really sordid concepts about what goes on in men's minds.
Let's put it like this, I suspect I've been in bedrooms more times with a man than you have.0 -
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe.
To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity.
Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.
"To me" meaning you found it so. No ?0 -
Just because you do something disgusting in the privacy or just because you have private conversation you can't assume it will stay private unless you talking to a solicitor, priest or doctor where there is guarantee of confidentiality. And even then it can be abused. What is the issue?
Unless you examine the phones of all men in Jacksons age group it is unfair to prevent Jackson getting back to normal life because of private messages sent to people they wouldnt offend. Gilroy sent the worst message, if Jackson and Olding are banned from returning to rugby then Gilroy shouldnt play again either.0 -
Advertisement
-
No he's not. That's not what a jury does. A jury found him not guilty. They said there was not enough evidence to say he was guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent.
He is presumed innocent though, right?
Is the difference between an innocent man and a presumed innocent man simply that there has never been an accusation against the innocent man?
So an accusation alone is all that's needed to put a giant asterisk next to someone's name?
"No smoke without fire" or something?0 -
The difference between men and women though is that a woman wouldnt have the strength to force sex.
We have to differentiate in cases of alleged rape though, there is a big difference between a woman raped at knifepont and a threesome that occurs between three people in an accused persons bedroom. The main issue here is consent and how do you prove that was there or not when you have a woman going to a sexual assault unit with one version of events and then going to the Police with a different tale. It doesnt help matters when the Police who are only supposed to refer cases to the PPS when they have strong evidence then hand the woman the statements of the men she is accusing of horrible crimes.
Suggesting that we lower the bar of evidence to something less than reasonable doubt is not a safe proposition in cases like the Belfast one.
The jury heard everything in this case, sat for over nine weeks and came back with a verdict in less than four hours.
I dont know what can be done to improve things in the Belfast case other than to treat men and women the same, ie if the woman gets anonymity then the men do too.
It would be better also if the case was held in camera.
This is what the jury were asked to come back with a verdict on (via Frank Greney twitter)
Stuart Olding:
For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:
1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth
2. She did not consent
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting
For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:
1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina
2. The penetration was sexual 3. The complainant did not consent
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting
For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:
1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina
2. She did not consent
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.
Its absolutely impossible to prove beyond all doubt of an offence.The only convictions of rape are those that entailed violence where the victim probably ended up in hospital.
Education of both sexes is the only way to solve this for both sexes to avoid the courts is the only way forward because when it gets to the courts its too late.0 -
No he's not. That's not what a jury does. A jury found him not guilty. They said there was not enough evidence to say he was guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent.
The jury werent asked to say whether Jackson and Olding were innocent.
They were asked to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and becasue they couldnt do this they acquitted the men on all charges.
We dont know what the jury believed but the speed of the acquittal is pretty damning for the woman, the PSNI and the PPS.0 -
This is what the jury were asked to come back with a verdict on (via Frank Greney twitter)
Stuart Olding:
For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:
1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth
2. She did not consent
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting
For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:
1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina
2. The penetration was sexual 3. The complainant did not consent
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting
For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:
1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina
2. She did not consent
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.
Its absolutely impossible to prove beyond all doubt of an offence.The only convictions of rape are those that entailed violence where the victim probably ended up in hospital.
Education of both sexes is the only way to solve this for both sexes to avoid the courts is the only way forward because when it gets to the courts its too late.
Actually, no, the best way for these cases not to occur is for men and women to stop abusing alcohol and to stop having sexual activity with people they have just met. Maybe a raising of standards of behaviour would help as its clear from this case that standards couldnt go any lower for all parties involved.0 -
The jury werent asked to say whether Jackson and Olding were innocent.
They were asked to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and becasue they couldnt do this they acquitted the men on all charges.
We dont know what the jury believed but the speed of the acquittal is pretty damning for the woman, the PSNI and the PPS.
Yes but you keep saying 'The jury believed them' - that is not what Not Guilty means. It means they felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt. So yes they have the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law.
It does not mean the jury believed everything they said. Their stories were inconsistent with eachother, so it is not even logical that the jury believed everything they said.0 -
Advertisement
-
"To me" meaning you found it so. No ?
Yes, he did what he said he was going to do on behalf of the Ulster Supporters Club - make a 'reasonable' plea.
It was reasonable because he accepted that they needed to be reprimanded, that their behaviour was wrong but that they were young and would have learned valuable lessons.
You claimed that those unmoved by that plea were the majority of 'reasonable people'.
You cannot know that.0 -
That's a weird article. It's arguing that the 6% figure is wrong. But if you look at the links it shows that it's right too.
Only about 1 tenth of rapes are reported. 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction. However for rapes which are prosecuted and result in a trial, the number of convictions is over 50%. However it's also a weird figure because it says that 58% are convicted of rape or another offence. So it's not 58% convictions for rape it's for rape or another offense.
It's an interesting read and I'd like to know more.One of the links off it is this one
and it provides a better breakdown.
As a side note I went searching for the article I read last week and found it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-trial-was-on-a-par-with-the-rape-but-i-m-glad-i-testified-1.3445573
It mentions the way rape trials are num in other countries and it's an interesting read.0 -
Unless you examine the phones of all men in Jacksons age group it is unfair to prevent Jackson getting back to normal life because of private messages sent to people they wouldnt offend. Gilroy sent the worst message, if Jackson and Olding are banned from returning to rugby then Gilroy shouldnt play again either.
They are not prevented from doing anything but you can't force people to fund their rugby career and if they don't want to do it that is fine. It's up to club to decide if it makes sense to have them on the pitch. Btw no employment law entitles them to play, club can keep them on the books till the end of contract and not play them. It happens all the time in rich football clubs.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Yes, he did what he said he was going to do on behalf of the Ulster Supporters Club - make a 'reasonable' plea.
It was reasonable because he accepted that they needed to be reprimanded, that their behaviour was wrong but that they were young and would have learned valuable lessons.
You claimed that those unmoved by that plea were the majority of 'reasonable people'.
You cannot know that.
In your view it was reasonable and passed your test of reasonableness because basically you agree with him. But not in everyone's view. I am trying to show you that 'reasonable' is not universal and is quite dodgy in figuring out what is real.0 -
The jury werent asked to say whether Jackson and Olding were innocent.
They were asked to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and becasue they couldnt do this they acquitted the men on all charges.
We dont know what the jury believed but the speed of the acquittal is pretty damning for the woman, the PSNI and the PPS.
No it's not.
You are having some problems with basic logic.
The jury not finding the players guilty generates no conclusion about the woman. They made no statements about her. They were not asked to come to a conclusion about her. They simply said that they did not find enough evidence to find the players guilty.
And as someone else posted they had to decide if the players believed she was consenting. It's not whether or not she consented but whether the players thought she had.0 -
Education of both sexes is the only way to solve this for both sexes to avoid the courts is the only way forward because when it gets to the courts its too late.
How would this "education" work exactly?
We could teach them that "yes means yes" or something but how does that transfer into the justice system?
How could the accused prove that they had consent?
How could the accuser prove that consent was not given?
In a case like this one the men are saying the sex was consensual and the woman is saying that it was not. How can we prove it either way? This is where the concept of reasonable doubt takes over and it's impossible to secure a conviction.
The only education here would be to teach people not to get into these kinds of situations at all.
If we are teaching them "you need to get consent" then the logical defense against an accusation is "I got consent".
Or are we going to educate them on how to prove consent was given?
My understanding is that on a basic level we would be saying "OK, when you are going to have sex with someone you need to ask them if it's OK and they need to say yes before you can begin".
What happens if someone says "yes" but later on says "I did not say yes"?
How would the content of educational materials or consent classes or whatever transfer over to a courtroom?
How would you even factor in issues like alcohol consumption? She says "I was too drunk to consent". He says "she told me she hadn't been drinking".
How is a jury going to make a decision there? Alcohol levels in her blood?0 -
No it's not.
You are having some problems with basic logic.
The jury not finding the players guilty generates no conclusion about the woman. They made no statements about her. They were not asked to come to a conclusion about her. They simply said that they did not find enough evidence to find the players guilty.
And as someone else posted they had to decide if the players believed she was consenting. It's not whether or not she consented but whether the players thought she had.
The swiftness of the jury's verdict of course isn't any statement about the complainant but it absolutely does raise a question about the case itself.
By the time they've voted on each charge and gone through a number of checklists and informed the judge to assemble the gallery there is very little time for actual debate or discussion. It would therefore be likely that no deliberation occurred ie; the entire jury had reached a not guilty verdict independently on all charges for all defendants before they went into deliberate.
So with the resources of the entire courts services available to them, the ability to clarify any issue, the time afforded to discuss any aspect of the case and the instruction of the judge to consider everything that has been said, the jury instead immediately voted and unanimously discharged the case.
That would suggest to me that the prosecution weren't even remotely close to a conviction.
There is certainly a presumption here, but it's a reasonably safe one. If new information is brought into the public sphere later we might have a clearer picture. Maybe not.0 -
No it's not.
You are having some problems with basic logic.
The jury not finding the players guilty generates no conclusion about the woman. They made no statements about her. They were not asked to come to a conclusion about her. They simply said that they did not find enough evidence to find the players guilty.
And as someone else posted they had to decide if the players believed she was consenting. It's not whether or not she consented but whether the players thought she had.
If eleven people have sat through nine weeks of a very complex trial and come back with an acquittal for four men in less than four hours total deliberation I think that says they hadnt much to discuss, ie no evidence whatsoever that anyone was forced to have any sexual activity whatsoever against her will.
I f I was the personn who had made very wild damaging allegations against two people, a less serious but nonetheless very unpleasant allegation against someone else I would like to think a jury would have some difficulty in their deliberations.
The pSNI and the PPS know what the extremely short deliberations meant and hopefully there is an enquiry at all levels as to how this case ever went to Court.
If there isnt no lessons at all have been learnt.0 -
How would this "education" work exactly?
We could teach them that "yes means yes" or something but how does that transfer into the justice system?
How could the accused prove that they had consent?
How could the accuser prove that consent was not given?
In a case like this one the men are saying the sex was consensual and the woman is saying that it was not. How can we prove it either way? This is where the concept of reasonable doubt takes over and it's impossible to secure a conviction.
The only education here would be to teach people not to get into these kinds of situations at all.
If we are teaching them "you need to get consent" then the logical defense against an accusation is "I got consent".
Or are we going to educate them on how to prove consent was given?
My understanding is that on a basic level we would be saying "OK, when you are going to have sex with someone you need to ask them if it's OK and they need to say yes before you can begin".
What happens if someone says "yes" but later on says "I did not say yes"?
How would the content of educational materials or consent classes or whatever transfer over to a courtroom?
How would you even factor in issues like alcohol consumption? She says "I was too drunk to consent". He says "she told me she hadn't been drinking".
How is a jury going to make a decision there? Alcohol levels in her blood?
nearly every question there could also be applied to the law as it is now. Are you trying to say that since it's hard to determine consent we should just ditch the idea of consent completly?
Or how about we strengthen the idea of consent. How about we make it so people have to get the consent of a partner before they do something.
let me put it this way. You're having sex with a woman. Would you ask before engaging in anal sex? Or would you assume consent exists because you're already having vaginal intercourse? Even if you'd had anal sex with her you'd still ask before shoving it in. And if you didn't ask and just shoved it in would you consider that anal rape?
And why shouldn't that be extended to cover other acts and orifices?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The swiftness of the jury's verdict of course isn't any statement about the complainant but it absolutely does raise a question about the case itself.
By the time they've voted on each charge and gone through a number of checklists and informed the judge to assemble the gallery there is very little time for actual debate or discussion. It would therefore be likely that no deliberation occurred ie; the entire jury had reached a not guilty verdict independently on all charges for all defendants before they went into deliberate.
So with the resources of the entire courts services available to them, the ability to clarify any issue, the time afforded to discuss any aspect of the case and the instruction of the judge to consider everything that has been said, the jury instead immediately voted and unanimously discharged the case.
That would suggest to me that the prosecution weren't even remotely close to a conviction.
There is certainly a presumption here, but it's a reasonably safe one. If new information is brought into the public sphere later we might have a clearer picture. Maybe not.
I have said all along that the existence of a witness who did not fully corroborate the complainant's evidence was sufficient on its own to introduce reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean the woman wasn't raped. Neither does it mean that it wasn't fully consensual. For a jury member, it would have led them towards the conclusion that you couldn't be certain it was a rape and that reasonable doubt existed.
I am very surprised that the case was ever brought, given that evidence. Imagine the difference if her evidence was to the effect that she witnessed the men holding the woman down, the woman struggling and the men laughing at her. The jury would have taken twenty minutes to return a guilty verdict. That is how crucial her evidence was.0 -
Advertisement
-
No he really was dreadful and judging by the comments most reasonable people thought so too. Funny word 'reasonable' wouldn't you say ? Very much in the eye of the beholder.
The 'reasonable man' is one of the fundamental foundations of law and yet, when considering who is the reasonable man by which the standard is set, the courts have famously used 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' as the hypothetical standard. So even the courts have struggled to really define this concept, despite it being so important in law.
But, its ambiguity is its strength. It allows courts to weigh up facts, circumstances and evidence to determine whether a person had intent to commit a particular crime or was reckless in committing a wrong. It is not an infallible doctrine, like some inviolable law of physics, but as a manmade concept is susceptible to human error. Nonetheless, in a world where human interactions and commercial business are so complex, a case-by-case approach in determining what was 'reasonable' allows for greater flexibility in achieving a fair trial.
Tighter legislation and stricter definitions may often seem like a definitive course of action for progress -- but it is absolutely critical that the law avoids action for action's sake. Applying a standard of 'clear consent' is extremely problematic because it doesn't realistically take account of how sex unfolds. Sex is not some polite mannerly contractual encounter -- it is by nature an animalistic process during which we think and behave much differently than we do when not in a state of arousal. It is not the place of the law to turn sex into a formal process where we mechanically follow a strict set of statutory rules for every single aspect of the sexual encounter. Having said that, notwithstanding the animalistic nature of sex, the law is strict enough for it to be clear that a man cannot simply do whatever he wants during sex, and that the 'reasonable belief' of consent does not mean that consent to sex means that the man is allowed to enact every sexual fetish or fantasy on the female, whether those are legal or illegal.
To me -- the law on consent is not the problem. The problem is that, from what I can see, people (even good people with no intent to do harm on anyone) simply have not thought critically enough about the extent of the law. A sexual assault does not have to be some violent non-consensual sexual encounter, but can (in context) be simply exposing yourself to someone or touching a girl's behind on a dancefloor. How many men in Coppers understand that they may have committed a sexual assault by "just" touching a girl's behind? How many people are aware that, when a woman consents to sex on the basis that you don't ejaculate inside her vagina , a man can be guilty of rape if he subsequently decides to ejaculate inside her?0 -
Actually, no, the best way for these cases not to occur is for men and women to stop abusing alcohol and to stop having sexual activity with people they have just met. Maybe a raising of standards of behaviour would help as its clear from this case that standards couldnt go any lower for all parties involved.
Can you accept that it would have been impossible for any jurors to believe that the accused might have thought they had consent (bearing in mind the large amount of alcohol involved).0 -
I have said all along that the existence of a witness who did not fully corroborate the complainant's evidence was sufficient on its own to introduce reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean the woman wasn't raped. Neither does it mean that it wasn't fully consensual. For a jury member, it would have led them towards the conclusion that you couldn't be certain it was a rape and that reasonable doubt existed.
I am very surprised that the case was ever brought, given that evidence. Imagine the difference if her evidence was to the effect that she witnessed the men holding the woman down, the woman struggling and the men laughing at her. The jury would have taken twenty minutes to return a guilty verdict. That is how crucial her evidence was.
For sure. But there are two parts to her evidence that are critical. Not just that she didn't think she'd seen a rape - but the actions of Jackson, Olding and the complainant when she walked in.
The complainant turned her face away. Jackson beckoned her to join in and Olding was relaxed back with his arms no where near the complainants head.
Regardless of whether she thought there was a rape, her evidence also confirmed that Jackson and Olding also didn't think there was a rape and that is important evidence. They would have had no idea whether the complainant would freeze or seek help from another female coming in and Dara was a stranger to everyone there.
That still doesn't mean there wasn't a rape, but it does suggest that neither defendant believed there was which is contrary to the evidence put forward by the complainant. By her evidence there could have been no doubt. It's an issue at the centre of the trial that is hard to reconcile.0 -
In your view it was reasonable and passed your test of reasonableness because basically you agree with him. But not in everyone's view. I am trying to show you that 'reasonable' is not universal and is quite dodgy in figuring out what is real.
He was 'reasonable', he didn't proclaim, shout or insist. He put his case (or the case of the club) and allowed for punishment and accepted criticisms.
That is 'reasonable'(he gave 'reasons for his opinions) whether you agree with them or not.
You claimed that the majority (most) of reasonable people disagreed with him, when you could not possibly know that.0 -
Can you accept that it would have been impossible for any jurors to believe that the accused might have thought they had consent (bearing in mind the large amount of alcohol involved).
No, the alcohol was a huge factor but the main one was Dara Florence.
If it wasnt for her the men could be in jail, this is a sobering thought because in that case it would have the womans word against the mens and everyone would say we should believe her because why would she put herself through a court case etc etc.
For example she said Olding used his hands to force her to have oral sex, DF testified Oldings hands were not on the womans head. If you were to believe that Olding did use his hands to force her then its possible to believe the oral sex was non consensual.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »He was 'reasonable', he didn't proclaim, shout or insist. He put his case (or the case of the club) and allowed for punishment and accepted criticisms.
That is 'reasonable'(he gave 'reasons for his opinions) whether you agree with them or not.
You claimed that the majority (most) of reasonable people disagreed with him, when you could not possibly know that.
Any crazy nutter could give reasons for their answer, that would not make such a crazy person reasonable. Reasonable means of sound judgement but obviously I think I am mrs reasonable and I'm fairly sure you might say you are a reasonable person but the point is what's reasonable is subjective.0 -
Any crazy nutter could give reasons for their answer, that would not make such a crazy person reasonable. Reasonable means of sound judgement but obviously I think I am mrs reasonable and I'm fairly sure you might say you are a reasonable person but the point is what's reasonable is subjective.
He was demonstratively reasonable and he even allowed for you, me and the presenter to disagree with him.
You claimed a majority (most) of reasonable people disagreed with him You could not possibly know that.
Stop deliberately missing the point made.0 -
nearly every question there could also be applied to the law as it is now. Are you trying to say that since it's hard to determine consent we should just ditch the idea of consent completly?
Or how about we strengthen the idea of consent. How about we make it so people have to get the consent of a partner before they do something.
let me put it this way. You're having sex with a woman. Would you ask before engaging in anal sex? Or would you assume consent exists because you're already having vaginal intercourse? Even if you'd had anal sex with her you'd still ask before shoving it in. And if you didn't ask and just shoved it in would you consider that anal rape?
And why shouldn't that be extended to cover other acts and orifices?
Not at all. I think we should strengthen the idea of consent and there is a lot to be done obviously.
The conversation about how all this would work in court still needs to take place.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
Nobody seems able to answer this too well. I've seen people talking about signing contracts etc but then that almost removes the ability to withdraw consent. Or at least makes it almost impossible to prove that consent was withdrawn.
Morally it certainly does matter if a person asks for consent or not. To do these things without consent is a terrible act. So I would consider it to be rape if a person did those things without asking.
Legally though? How do we prove that there was consent? How do we prove that their wasn't?
Would consent classes focus on the legal aspect?
A shopkeeper might accuse someone of stealing from them but they might have CCTV footage or eyewitness accounts.
Even a very brief browse shows that in successful shoplifting prosecutions there is often CCTV footage or a security guard stopped the thief when they tried to leave the store.
In other words there is actual evidence that the crime took place.
A brief browse shows there are false allegations of shoplifting too and usually those will be stopped dead when the accused produces their receipt showing that they paid for goods or they will ask the store to check CCTV. Usually these won't even go to court.
The main question about consent here from a legal perspective is how would you prove that consent was given? How would you prove that consent was not given?
If consent is going to be central to these cases but we are struggling to prove that consent was not given then how can we hope to get more prosecutions?
The way I see it, you are good at arguing on semantics and you are exceptionally skilled and being pedantic BUT you are offering nothing of substance and you don't have any solutions at all.
"Are you trying to say that since it's hard to determine consent we should just ditch the idea of consent completely?"
No.0 -
About one in 100 rapes end in conviction or something similar. I am pretty sure almost all rape convictions are for actual rapes. Stop with the false comparisons.
Your 1 in 100 figure is based on claims of rape by individuals. A dramatic number of these go nowhere near the level of evidence to proceed to trial on the basis of the legal definition of rape. It’s simply not accurate to refer to all these as rapes that somehow slip through a broken system. We’ve seen what happens in the UK when the system changes to prosecute more of these cases based on believing the compalinant- we don’t get more convictions because the evidence is still not there. It makes good headlines to say the conviction rate is low but when it’s artificially suppressed it does a huge amount of damage.
As has been shown earlier the actual rate of conviction for rape is higher than is often claimed (for example the 17% figure in the Irish examiner is seen to be a very misleadingly low number).
In addition you’re strawmanning the actual point here. What’s being proposed will by definition increase the false conviction rate and place the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence. Why is it more acceptable to falsely convict than to falsely acquit?0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »He was demonstratively reasonable and he even allowed for you, me and the presenter to disagree with him.
You claimed a majority (most) of reasonable people disagreed with him You could not possibly know that.
Stop deliberately missing the point made.
For the very last time, I found him not to be reasonable at all. Therefore unless you agree with me, fact is what's reasonable is subjective. Keep going all you like after this but I suspect you and I will never agree on what is 'reasonable' which proves my point.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement