Fall out of rape trial- legal discussion

lifeandtimes

To start I'm not opening this thread to discuss the trial or the how the out come came about.

I'm opening to thread to discuss the legal implications of the fall out the defendants will more than likely experience.

As the verdict was not guilty they are free to carry on and at this point ultimately rebuild their lives, however we would be naive to think therr won't be a substantial impact on them.

For 1 although they should have every right to play for Ireland again I can't see Schmidt having them on, where does that leave Schmidt, the IRFU or infact any employer for anyone normal not guikty person if they were to cut ties specifically based on this trial?

Could the defendants sue for unfair dismissals or unfair treatment if they were to still be on the team but never picked to play?

Could the defendants clam for loss of earnings based on no employment going forward if they weren't to be selected for new jobs of they were to apply?

Also the masses are out in social claiming they are guilty etc, can slander/defimation be brought against anyone who claims this?

I'd like to hear further opinions on the legal impact this will have going forward

Eric Cartman

the sponsors will never allow them back to play, its all business.

A terrible outcome for the lads as they are the real losers despite being found not guilty.

I however am glad that the Jury saw (what is in my opinion) sense and found them not guilty.

lifeandtimes

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the sponsors will never allow them back to play, its all business.

That's a point in looking to discuss, Vodafone won't want them in a shirt I'm assuming so that's a loss already. Where does that leave someine in that position legally? Loss of earnings can be argued in court

ScouseMouse

lifeandtimes wrote: »

That's a point in looking to discuss, Vodafone won't want them in a shirt I'm assuming so that's a loss already. Where does that leave someine in that position legally? Loss of earnings can be argued in court

Thats an interesting thought. So could the guys found innocent, who now find themselves at a genuine loss, either by reputation or financially, seek recompense from the state/accuser/other person?

Stheno

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Thats an interesting thought. So could the guys found innocent, who now find themselves at a genuine loss, either by reputation or financially, seek recompense from the state/accuser/other person?

There are probably ethics clauses in their conteacts which cover this tbh.

Eric Cartman

Stheno wrote: »

There are probably ethics clauses in their conteacts which cover this tbh.

that may stop them from suing, but whats ethically dubious about having consensual sex with a woman. I severely doubt theres a threesome clause in there.

ScouseMouse

Stheno wrote: »

There are probably ethics clauses in their conteacts which cover this tbh.

So what breach of ethics is there in being wrongfully accused of something and having their photos splashed across the international press?

Autochange

lifeandtimes wrote: »

That's a point in looking to discuss, Vodafone won't want them in a shirt I'm assuming so that's a loss already. Where does that leave someine in that position legally? Loss of earnings can be argued in court

They are innocent in the eyes of the law. No reason they won't play again.
She should have to publicly apologize to each of them

ScouseMouse

Autochange wrote: »

They are innocent in the eyes of the law. No reason they won't play again.
She should have to publicly apologize to each of them

But she has anonymity. Nobody will know for sure what happened that night only that a court of law found them innocent.

But in the long run, she is away and they have this in their history. In the interests of equality, nobody should have been named until this was finalised.

Seems very unjust on innocent men.

lifeandtimes

I'd lile to keep this thread in track please specifically regarding the future of people found innocent.

Not what an accuser should do in the aftermath.

However the point of possibly sueing an accuser for loss of earnings would fall within this discussion.

Hopefully people with more knowledge than me can answer it

Stheno

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So what breach of ethics is there in being wrongfully accused of something and having their photos splashed across the international press?

They probably have a clause that refers to any behaviour that may negatively affect the reputation of their club/ union. Being charged alone might fall under that clause.

They were found not guilty not falsely accused it was simply found there was not enough proof

weary1

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So what breach of ethics is there in being wrongfully accused of something and having their photos splashed across the international press?

I think perhaps getting drunk , gang banging women, and boasting about it may not go well with sponsors. I don't think this was disputed by their defence.

ScouseMouse

weary1 wrote: »

I think perhaps getting drunk , gang banging women, and boasting about it may not go well with sponsors. I don't think this was disputed by their defence.

Getting drunk and gangbanging a woman who may (or maynot) have been up for it, is nobodys business.

A court of law, a jury of people who listened to the evidence in full, says they are not guilty.

Alf Veedersane

History is littered with players who were performing at club level but didn't get the call, fell out of favour etc at international level.

They might never be selected and the reason given could always be presented as a playing one.

There's no way they would win a case based on the reason they didn't get picked at international level was being on trial.

weary1

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Getting drunk and gangbanging a woman who may (or maynot) have been up for it, is nobodys business.

A court of law, a jury of people who listened to the evidence in full, says they are not guilty.

Well that's law not ethics - two different things.

lifeandtimes

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Getting drunk and gangbanging a woman who may (or maynot) have been up for it, is nobodys business

Exactly this.

If someone was to break into Christian Ronaldo house (no idea why he came to mind) and found a gimp suit and homemade porn and plastered it all over the net, would sponsers be in their right to cut ties with him for what he does in the bedroom doesn't fall inline with Real Madrid and their code of ethics?

Stheno

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Exactly this.

If someone was to break into Christian Ronaldo house (no idea why he came to mind) and found a gimp suit and homemade porn and plastered it all over the net, would sponsers be in their right to cut ties with him for what he does in the bedroom?

If it doesnt fit with their ethos and is covered in their contract yes.

Kevin Spacey and netflix spring to mind

OscarBluth

There was more than enough in the text and WhatsApp messages to stop sponsors wanting to be involved.

Regardless of what you think happened to the woman in question, or the outcome of the case, there was truly vile misogyny demonstrated in the texts, and on the basis of that I would say most sponsors would be well within their rights to not want those men representing them. The trial may be why they came into the public domaine but on their own they're damning enough.

lifeandtimes

Stheno wrote: »

If it doesnt fit with their ethos and is covered in their contract yes.

Kevin Spacey and netflix spring to mind

An allegation of sexually assaulting a minor vrs someone without your consent posting private videos of you legally getting freaky are 2 very different things

Stheno

lifeandtimes wrote: »

An allegation of sexually assaulting a minor vrs someone without your consent posting private videos of you legally getting freaky are 2 very different things

Who are you referring to about the videos?

Laphroaig52

weary1 wrote: »

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So what breach of ethics is there in being wrongfully accused of something and having their photos splashed across the international press?

I think perhaps getting drunk , gang banging women, and boasting about it may not go well with sponsors. I don't think this was disputed by their defence.

Two Munster players were in a comparable situation a few years ago, albeit without any questions about consent. It didn't appear to do their careers or general marketability any harm.

It's hard to see on what basis the IRFU could take any action against them now. There was no criminal actions and at worst they could only be accused of being uncouth. As ithappened in their own time and outside the workplace, what business is it of their employer?

Jackson probably has the most to lose here. He was the '10 in waiting' and likely the natural successor to Sexton for Ireland. Even if he gets his form back over the coming months, he's lost over a year in a very short career and others have emerged to take his place.

I understand that perception is important when sponsorship is involved and the inside of another courtroom is the last thing these boys want to see.

But I think the IRFU are in a very awkward position now.

Caranica

A Not guilty verdict does not mean innocent. Read Stuart Olding's stament, glad to be found not guilty but sorry he did it.

I expected this legal discussion thread would refer to the possibility of offering a third verdict as in Scotland "not proven".

Another legal issue is how is wiping a phone, deletion of messages and burning sheets not perversion of the course of justice?

These are the bigger legal issues to me.

GingerLily

If they tried to sue the acuser for loss of earnings, would that be in a civil court? Could the civil court find there is enough proof to find them guilty and therefore not a false allegation?

Stheno

GingerLily wrote: »

If they tried to sue the acuser for loss of earnings, would that be in a civil court? Could the civil court find there is enough proof to find them guilty and therefore not a false allegation?

Yes the burden of proof is lower in civil court.

It could work that civil court could find her claims false also

Autochange

Caranica wrote: »

Another legal issue is how is wiping a phone, deletion of messages and burning sheets not perversion of the course of justice?
.

Didn't your pal Hilary Clinton do something similar and snowflakes ignored it completely.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

godtabh

Fred Swanson wrote: »

In a civil court the woman only has to be found 51% in her favour, then the men are civilly liable.

Remember OJ Simpson, acquitted in criminal court but found liable in a civil trial.

Criminal and civil trials have very different burden of proof.

HONKEY TONK

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What would the be found liable for? Having a threesome?

fritzelly

Why does she get anonymity (tho will probably come out) but the accused do not get the same courtesy unless found guilty - should be no reason for a thread like this regardless what they did and whether it was acceptable or not, the jury found the claims unsubstantiated so what went on behind closed doors should stay there.

Enough fake rape cases that have ruined men's lives

Muahahaha

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

History is littered with players who were performing at club level but didn't get the call, fell out of favour etc at international level.

They might never be selected and the reason given could always be presented as a playing one.

There's no way they would win a case based on the reason they didn't get picked at international level was being on trial.

I think that is exactly how it will play out. They have now been out of playing professional rugby at the highest level for 18 months at a time that is crucial to building their career.

Olding was only really a fringe player in the Ireland squad. Jackson was getting okay-ish game time but he is not as good as Conor Murray and also now Joey Carbury has surpassed him at outhalf. So for Joe Schmidt I dont think he will want the headache of re-calling Jackson when he has better players available to him anyway.

HONKEY TONK

fritzelly wrote: »

Why does she get anonymity (tho will probably come out) but the accused do not get the same courtesy unless found guilty - should be no reason for a thread like this regardless what they did and whether it was acceptable or not, the jury found the claims unsubstantiated so what went on behind closed doors should stay there.

Enough fake rape cases that have ruined men's lives

I don't know the law but I would have thought they would have a case of defarmation of character against this girl?

GingerLily

fritzelly wrote: »

Why does she get anonymity (tho will probably come out) but the accused do not get the same courtesy unless found guilty - should be no reason for a thread like this regardless what they did and whether it was acceptable or not, the jury found the claims unsubstantiated so what went on behind closed doors should stay there.

Enough fake rape cases that have ruined men's lives

I agree with you that naming accusers seem very unfair, but a not guilty verdict does not mean a fake rape claim.

You cannot use statistics for not guilty verdicts and assume these people were falsely accused.

There is no evidence the claim in this case was false, just that there was not sufficient proof to validate it.

donegal_man

Autochange wrote: »

Didn't your pal Hilary Clinton do something similar and snowflakes ignored it completely.

We need a Godwin's Law for bringing Hillary Clinton into every thread

Laphroaig52

fritzelly wrote: »

Why does she get anonymity (tho will probably come out)

I think it's unlikely her identity will ever come out in any meaningful way.
None of the main stream media will ever reveal it. Undoubtedly, there are dark corners of the internet where her name and picture could be found. But if she applied for a job here or in the North tomorrow, its unlikely any potential employer would link her with thus case.

On the other hand, the four lads will never totally distance themselves from this.

fritzelly

GingerLily wrote: »

I agree with you that naming accusers seem very unfair, but a not guilty verdict does not mean a fake rape claim.

You cannot use statistics for not guilty verdicts and assume these people were falsely accused.

There is no evidence the claim in this case was false, just that there was not sufficient proof to validate it.

Never used any statistics. They were found not guilty - enough people on the jury did not believe her claims
Is not enough proof required to validate your claim? Wasn't just her testimony that was taken into consideration.
Should we convict based on well maybe it was rape but we've got no proof bar someone saying they were raped?

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

I don't know the law but I would have thought they would have a case of defarmation of character against this girl?

As I understand the law - no.

Seems her name has been leaked now.

Laphroaig52

Caranica wrote: »

A Not guilty verdict does not mean innocent.

Who told you that?

Before and during the trial, they were 'presumed innocent'. With a Not Guilty verdict they continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

Cork Lass

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But she has anonymity. Nobody will know for sure what happened that night only that a court of law found them innocent.

But in the long run, she is away and they have this in their history. In the interests of equality, nobody should have been named until this was finalised.

Seems very unjust on innocent men.

A court of law did not find them innocent. Not guilty does not Equate to being innocent, just that there was not enough evidence to find them guilty. Unless you were in that room on that night you cannot know if they are innocent or guilty.

Caranica

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

Who told you that?

Before and during the trial, they were 'presumed innocent'. With a Not Guilty verdict they continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

The burden of proof is exceptionally high in rape cases. Not guilty means not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Because the 4 were tried together all it needed to have reasonable doubt was for all the stories to differ just a bit. Which they did, a lot.

It's the perversion of the course of justice verdict I really can't understand. To me it appeared that he was the only one that could absolutely be found guilty.

fritzelly

Cork Lass wrote: »

A court of law did not find them innocent. Not guilty does not Equate to being innocent, just that there was not enough evidence to find them guilty. Unless you were in that room on that night you cannot know if they are innocent or guilty.

Did not find them innocent of what exactly?
Maybe they had sex, maybe they didn't, maybe they had a threesome, maybe she was the instigator, maybe she wasn't - but they were cleared of all charges of non consensual sex and that is where it should end instead of still accusing of them of having done something they shouldn't have.

lifeandtimes

Innocent until proven guilty, they were not found guilty and still enjoy the presumption of innocence

Now can we keep the thread in track a bit and focus on the future of the not guilty verdict regarding employment and loss of earnings.

I was surprised to see someone say they may be able to take a civil case against her. I wonder if that were to happen would the anonymity of the previous case follow forward or is it a different kettle of fish?

Also if she didn't have earnings in not sure they would get anything if they were too win

Carawaystick

If the trial happened in Dublin, would the trial have happened in pretty much the same way, but without any reporting on the trial until the verdict? and without any names named?

Has the law about reporting rape trials changed in NornIron or is it the high profile of the defendants in this case thats different?

I read today that despite the verdict, the Judge has kept reporting restrictions on the press. What's the reasoning for this?

Are Character Witnesses normal in trials for other offences? I read one character witness testimony was that one defendent helped her with her suitcase one time. That seems irrelevant.

Laphroaig52

Cork Lass wrote: »

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But she has anonymity. Nobody will know for sure what happened that night only that a court of law found them innocent.

But in the long run, she is away and they have this in their history. In the interests of equality, nobody should have been named until this was finalised.

Seems very unjust on innocent men.

A court of law did not find them innocent. Not guilty does not Equate to being innocent, just that there was not enough evidence to find them guilty. Unless you were in that room on that night you cannot know if they are innocent or guilty.

It's not for a court to find anyone 'innocent'. They were presumed innocent before and while they were in court. As the court did not find them guilty, they continue to be presumed innocent....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It would be absolutely pointless taking a civil case against the accuser.

I agree but with nothing to lose some people might if the option is there.

Imho I don't see them playing rugby again but they would need legal advice on where they stand if they were to not be picked, voluntarily leave and not be unable to find other employment, most emplouers will unfortunately want to distance themselves from them.

As someone said the IRFU are in a sticky situation, if they let them go they will have to answer why? If it's ethics then they'll have to explain the other sex situation involving a player and why it wasn't done there, if they don't let them go I can see sponser pulling out left right and centre

Laphroaig52

Caranica wrote: »

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

.
[/quote
It's the perversion of the course of justice verdict I really can't understand. To me it appeared that he was the only one that could absolutely be found guilty.

That occurred to me too.
Though I think the evidence on that count was weak and more hearsay than anything else.

fritzelly

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Now can we keep the thread in track a bit and focus on the future of the not guilty verdict regarding employment and loss of earnings.

Hasn't the discussion been about that, admittedly side swiped by why they were named and shamed from the start but part of the argument nonetheless

flatty

I'd imagine they'll head abroad, maybe to France for a spell.

GingerLily

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It would be absolutely pointless taking a civil case against the accuser.

They would have to prove she consented to prove it was a false allegation - if they had proof she consented we would have heard of that by now. If they take this to a civil court they could be found guilty there, and that would be a stupid reckless gamble.

GingerLily

flatty wrote: »

I'd imagine they'll head abroad, maybe to France for a spell.

I think that'd be the smartest move for them, from every angle

Tell me how

Autochange wrote:

Didn't your pal Hilary Clinton do something similar and snowflakes ignored it completely.

Jesus. Fox News over here. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary.

bilbot79

I would say Vodafone can do nothing about them wwearibg the shirt since they have been found not guilty no?