Stuart Oldings Costs

tretorn

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stuart-olding-seeks-legal-costs-of-rape-trial-alleging-flawed-prosecution-case-1.3661737

I see this young man has applied for his legal costs.

I really hope he succeeds. The woman who claimed he raped her had her legal costs paid and the Jury didnt believe her.

Olding had to leave his family and friends and relocate to France, he will probably never play rugby in Ireland again, this is a high cost to pay for engaging in consensual sex.

joe40

I didn't realise it was a civil case.
I was under the impression it was a criminal case taken by the public prosecutor, and the woman was a witness.

Silentcorner

I know this is an emotive and divisive issue.

She did not incur any legal costs because she made her case to the Police, the Police sent the file to the CPS, the CPS decided they had a more than reasonable chance of securing a conviction....she was only ever a witness to her case and was treated as such.

What did happen or didn't happen in that room that night is not what landed him in court. It is how the four lads reacted and behaved and recalled the night is why the CPS took the case to a jury...they only have themselves to blame.

pleas advice

tretorn wrote: »

, this is a high cost to pay for engaging in consensual sex.

careful now...

One eyed Jack

tretorn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stuart-olding-seeks-legal-costs-of-rape-trial-alleging-flawed-prosecution-case-1.3661737

I see this young man has applied for his legal costs.

I really hope he succeeds. The woman who claimed he raped her had her legal costs paid and the Jury didnt believe her.

Olding had to leave his family and friends and relocate to France, he will probably never play rugby in Ireland again, this is a high cost to pay for engaging in consensual sex.

That’s incorrect. There is no cost to pay for engaging in consensual sex. The cost of his solicitors fees is all he’s able to claim for in Northern Ireland.

amcalester

tretorn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stuart-olding-seeks-legal-costs-of-rape-trial-alleging-flawed-prosecution-case-1.3661737

I see this young man has applied for his legal costs.

I really hope he succeeds. The woman who claimed he raped her had her legal costs paid and the Jury didnt believe her.

Olding had to leave his family and friends and relocate to France, he will probably never play rugby in Ireland again, this is a high cost to pay for engaging in consensual sex.

The jury made no comment on whether they believed her or not, just that the prosecution didn’t prove their case.

Nice dig though.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I know this is an emotive and divisive issue.

She did not incur any legal costs because she made her case to the Police, the Police sent the file to the CPS, the CPS decided they had a more than reasonable chance of securing a conviction....she was only ever a witness to her case and was treated as such.

What did happen or didn't happen in that room that night is not what landed him in court. It is how the four lads reacted and behaved and recalled the night is why the CPS took the case to a jury...they only have themselves to blame.

Stuart Olding was charged on a single count of rape.

He was not charged for doing anything else.

This post has been redacted.

Guy:Incognito

amcalester wrote: »

The jury made no comment on whether they believed her or not, just that the prosecution didn’t prove their case.

Nice dig though.

Presumably if you were in Oldings position , anyone that said you were found innocent you immediately correct by saying " well actually no, they just couldn't prove the case against me"?

One eyed Jack

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably if you were in Oldings position , anyone that said you were found innocent you immediately correct by saying " well actually no, they just couldn't prove the case against me"?

In Olding’s position, Olding would be correct, as he was always presumed innocent, and it was up to the Prosecution to make a case against him, which they failed to do because they weren’t able to convince a jury that he should be found guilty.

The alleged victim wasn’t on trial and was only appearing as a witness for the State in their case against Olding.

Giveaway

Olding's statement after the verdict was reasonable and contrite and leaves a good impression. I hope he gets some of the costs covered. ~With regards the other one, " no comment"

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

I know this is an emotive and divisive issue.

She did not incur any legal costs because she made her case to the Police, the Police sent the file to the CPS, the CPS decided they had a more than reasonable chance of securing a conviction....she was only ever a witness to her case and was treated as such.

What did happen or didn't happen in that room that night is not what landed him in court. It is how the four lads reacted and behaved and recalled the night is why the CPS took the case to a jury...they only have themselves to blame.

Well, isnt that the pile of sh1t3...

DavidLyons_

I have so many posts on this page on ignore.

The guy has indeed paid a high price considering he was acquitted in a court of law.

I certainly hope he has his costs awarded to him.

However, can you imagine the outrage of the morons who marched against the verdict of a court in a different jurisdiction?

freshpopcorn

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

I have so many posts on this page on ignore.

The guy has indeed paid a high price considering he was acquitted in a court of law.

I certainly hope he has his costs awarded to him.

However, can you imagine the outrage of the morons who marched against the verdict of a court in a different jurisdiction?

The hash tag will be back along with people who have no interest in rugby suddenly acting all interested in it saying they'd boycott it.

Captain Red Beard

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

freshpopcorn

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

Lots of people delete texts for various reasons.
Example they don't want girlfriends/family reading them.

One eyed Jack

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

It’s not that hard to figure out that they deleted their text messages because they were acutely aware of how those messages would make them look like a pack of ignorant twats. Obviously deleting their messages still didn’t stop them looking like a pack of ignorant twats, but the messages becoming public wouldn’t have helped them look any better.

FrancieBrady

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

I always wondered why somebody who feels under threat in a room with somebody goes back voluntarily to that room, twice. But there you go, nowt stranger than folk.

hatrickpatrick

A person who is found not guilty in court should never have to pay for their own defence, IMO.

Water John

No need to retry the case here. An objective view, that most people feel is that with the testimony of the second woman who looked into the room is that the case should not have gone to court, with the DPP having her sworn statement.

This happened for other reasons, within the NI justice system. It wouldn't go to trial in the ROI or UK.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

Most likely knowing that the texts, if made public, would be used to smear and damage them regardless of any court verdict. Which, indeed, is exactly what happened.

CatFromHue

If that were the case why didn't they all delete all of their texts?

It could just well be a case where the person deleted it as that's what they do, nothing to do with the case.

One eyed Jack

CatFromHue wrote: »

If that were the case why didn't they all delete all of their texts?

It could just well be a case where the person deleted it as that's what they do, nothing to do with the case.

I’m only guessing here but I guess they didn’t imagine there was anything wrong with the messages they didn’t delete, and it’s only when those messages were made public and coloured by a completely different context that they made the men involved look as bad as they did.

thebaz

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

However, can you imagine the outrage of the morons who marched against the verdict of a court in a different jurisdiction?

Why are they not marching against the convicted rapist released today in Dublin ? I would join them for that -
Why are they not marching against Ronaldo ?

feargale

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not that hard to figure out that they deleted their text messages because they were acutely aware of how those messages would make them look like a pack of ignorant twats. Obviously deleting their messages still didn’t stop them looking like a pack of ignorant twats, but the messages becoming public wouldn’t have helped them look any better.

A pack of ignorant twats they may be, but they weren't charged with being a pack of ignorant twats. Does the penalty vary between being an ignorant twat and belonging to a pack of them?

PistolsAtDawn

IM OFFENDED, VERY, VERY OFFENDES ... OFFENDED #Offended

razorblunt

Silentcorner wrote: »

I know this is an emotive and divisive issue.

She did not incur any legal costs because she made her case to the Police, the Police sent the file to the CPS, the CPS decided they had a more than reasonable chance of securing a conviction....she was only ever a witness to her case and was treated as such.

What did happen or didn't happen in that room that night is not what landed him in court. It is how the four lads reacted and behaved and recalled the night is why the CPS took the case to a jury...they only have themselves to blame.

What? On trial for WhatsApp chats?

Guy:Incognito

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

Throw up all your txts from you phone there for us to go through........

DEFTLEFTHAND

With the world cup coming up next year, I hope to see Paddy Jackson back in the fold.

We need options at out half.

One eyed Jack

feargale wrote: »

A pack of ignorant twats they may be, but they weren't charged with being a pack of ignorant twats. Does the penalty vary between being an ignorant twat and belonging to a pack of them?

The penalties depend on the circumstances of each and every case. In some circumstances people will simply roll their eyes and carry on about their business, in other cases the person or people involved may lose their employment as their employer wishes to disassociate themselves from any association with such attitudes and behaviours.

VonZan

Obviously the state should pay for legal fees when they fail to get a prosecution.

It's difficult to know what really happened but there is no doubt that the prosecutions case was flawed and ultimately that's why they lost.

FrancieBrady

VonZan wrote: »

Obviously the state should pay for legal fees when they fail to get a prosecution.

It's difficult to know what really happened but there is no doubt that the prosecutions case was flawed and ultimately that's why they lost.

If it is 'difficult' to know what happened maybe it's the case they didn't do what was alleged? And that it was consensual. And that is why 'they' lost.

razorblunt

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

I always wondered why innocent men deleted their text messages detailing what they'd done.

#1 reason? i put something in the wrong whatsapp thread!

Sunny Disposition

It is wrong that people lost their jobs despite being proved not guilty. Very wrong.

razorblunt

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It is wrong that people lost their jobs despite being proved not guilty. Very wrong.

Of course, you can argue that they brought their employers into disrepute by their comments but that doesn't hold water as Gilroy is still there and he was the worst offender in the chat.

Edgware

If the P.S.N.I. investigators had asked the questions that the defence counsel asked there would have been no trial. Afraid to do so in case they offended someone.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It is wrong that people lost their jobs despite being proved not guilty. Very wrong.

Said it at the time, saying it again: when you've a high-profile job, you're pretty much on duty 24/7. Playing rugby is only part of the job (especially when you do it for your country).

Not saying this is right or wrong, but it IS the reality.

Roger Hassenforder

Edgware wrote: »

If the P.S.N.I. investigators had asked the questions that the defence counsel asked there would have been no trial. Afraid to do so in case they offended someone.

PSNI initially recommended no charges, PPS went with it anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It is wrong that people lost their jobs despite being proved not guilty. Very wrong.

Agreed. Employers should not be allowed to terminate people for non-criminal activities which take place outside of working hours. Criminal conviction is obviously an entirely legitimate cause for dismissal, but beyond that it should be limited to activities undertaken while actually on the clock.

KevinCavan

Ah jaysus, somebody had to drag this story up again.

amcalester

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably if you were in Oldings position , anyone that said you were found innocent you immediately correct by saying " well actually no, they just couldn't prove the case against me"?

No, I’d remind them that I am innocent and always was innocent.

FWIW I think he should have his costs awarded, I just thought the OP had an unnecessary dig at the woman.