Rape Victim Abused and Threatened in Court

anewme

Surprised theres not a thread on this already. Terrible this was allowed happen.

The Rape Crisis Network has called on the Garda to investigate threats made to a victim of sexual violence in a courtroom after two men were jailed for raping her.

On Monday morning, two Leitrim men were jailed for seven years for raping a woman who had blacked out at a house party in 2017.

After the sentence was handed down and the judge had exited the courtroom, some supporters of the men shouted at the victim. One woman shouted obscenities and another person shouted, “You’re a liar” and “You’re going to pay for this”.
Clíona Saidléar, executive director of the Rape Crisis Network Ireland, condemned the remarks and called on the State to show it is “willing and able to protect survivors who come forward in this manner”.

“This is a threat, even out of the context that it’s in, this is a threat from one person to another person and that’s a matter for the gardaí. We would also wonder if there was an element of contempt of court there,” Ms Saidléar said.

“We would really like to see the arms of the State really taking it [verbal abuse] seriously because it can have a hugely detrimental impact on not only this survivor, but others who are contemplating, or in the process of, coming forward through the justice system.

Martin Lanigan

Sickening

Graces7

Cowards waiting until the Judge had left. Despicable .

anewme

Graces7 wrote: »

Cowards waiting until the Judge had left. Despicable .

Awful.

There are many witnesses still remaining though who saw this, some of whom must be Gardai?
Not sure why they would not be challenged or arrested.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Awful.

There are many witnesses still remaining though who saw this, some of whom must be Gardai?
Not sure why they would not be challenged or arrested.

Arrested for what? No physical violence. No serious threats. Saying "You're going to pay for this" is too vague a threat for the Gardai to act upon.

There was no actual actionable abuse here. Such shouting is common enough in court rooms, when supporters are unhappy with a verdict. Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/call-for-garda-to-investigate-threats-to-victim-of-sexual-abuse-1.4176723 (you really should have posted the link to the article)

"“No formal complaints have been made by any parties at this time."

One eyed Jack

anewme wrote: »

Awful.

There are many witnesses still remaining though who saw this, some of whom must be Gardai?
Not sure why they would not be challenged or arrested.

Because it’s not determined to be serious enough to warrant a criminal investigation is all. That’s not to say that the Gardaí couldn’t investigate an incident if they thought it warranted investigation, it simply appears that in this case, they don’t -


Call for Garda to investigate threats to victim of sexual abuse


As an aside, Clíona Saidléar is an awful dose, using every opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill.

anewme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arrested for what? No physical violence. No serious threats. Saying "You're going to pay for this" is too vague a threat for the Gardai to act upon.

There was no actual actionable abuse here. Such shouting is common enough in court rooms, when supporters are unhappy with a verdict. Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/call-for-garda-to-investigate-threats-to-victim-of-sexual-abuse-1.4176723 (you really should have posted the link to the article)

"“No formal complaints have been made by any parties at this time."

Arrested for making threats.

I cant post the link - it wouldn't on my phone.

I'm not sure why you are asking about females? Did I not say that a woman shouted obscenities. Not sure what your angle is on this.? Abuse is abuse.

If the Gardai witness people making threats, should they not arrest them, even if the victim does not make a complaint.

Your excuse that they dont support the verdict is poor.

anewme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As an aside, Clíona Saidléar is an awful dose, using every opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Speaking out about abusing and threatening a rape victim in a Court of Law is hardly making a mountain out of a molehill.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Arrested for making threats.

Threats happen all the time. Unless the Gardai believe that there is a real risk involved, then they won't take action... especially when no formal complaint occurs.

I'm not sure why you are asking about females? Did I not say that a woman shouted obscenities. Not sure what your angle is on this.? Abuse is abuse.

I asked about a situation. We've done rounds on sexism/feminism threads before. So, you would be inclined that similar threats/comments by others should be followed up on. Fair enough.

If the Gardai witness people making threats, should they not arrest them, even if the victim does not make a complaint.

Your excuse that they dont support the verdict is poor.

Who? The Gardai? And I'm not excusing anything.. from anyone.

And no, They shouldn't be arrested unless the Gardai believe them capable of actual immediate violence. Ireland is not a police state, and I suspect you wouldn't like it if it was.

One eyed Jack

anewme wrote: »

Speaking out about abusing and threatening a rape victim in a Court of Law is hardly making a mountain out of a molehill.

Respectfully, I disagree. That’s exactly what it’s doing. I’m not justifying their behaviour, nor do I believe it’s an acceptable way to behave in a Court of Law, but calling for people to be arrested for their behaviour in those circumstances is ridiculously overdramatic and would simply be a waste of time and resources.

CrankyHaus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, I disagree. That’s exactly what it’s doing. I’m not justifying their behaviour, nor do I believe it’s an acceptable way to behave in a Court of Law, but calling for people to be arrested for their behaviour in those circumstances is ridiculously overdramatic and would simply be a waste of time and resources.

So people should be free to threaten rape complainants in the courthouse?
What effect do you think this will have on rape victims who are worried about pressing charges against their rapist?

One eyed Jack

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So people should be free to threaten rape complainants in the courthouse?

Who said that?

CrankyHaus wrote: »

What effect do you think this will have on rape victims who are worried about pressing charges against their rapist?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume it would be just another reason put some people off the idea off making a complaint to the authorities. I think a better way to address the issue is to prepare the person to be able to deal with the possibility that it could happen.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who said that?

well what's stopping them? You say yourself drawing attention to it is "making a mountain out of a molehill"

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

well what's stopping them? You say yourself drawing attention to it is "making a mountain out of a molehill"

I also said this, maybe you missed it -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not justifying their behaviour, nor do I believe it’s an acceptable way to behave in a Court of Law, but calling for people to be arrested for their behaviour in those circumstances is ridiculously overdramatic and would simply be a waste of time and resources.

Beasty

Posts by re-reg troll plus replies deleted

CrankyHaus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who said that?

You said it when you argued against any prohibition or sanction for people threatening rape victims in the courthouse. People are free to do anything that is not forbidden.




Now you're saying we should simply tell rape victims how to suck it up.


But yeah, I suppose if they complained they'd just be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Fr_Dougal

Any threats like that should be followed up and at the very least they should have been arrested for using abusive and threatening language.

It’s difficult enough for rape victims to have to go to court, they should be fully protected from that sort of crap.

One eyed Jack

CrankyHaus wrote: »

You said it when you argued against any prohibition or sanction for people threatening rape victims in the courthouse. People are free to do anything that is not forbidden.

So I didn’t say it, but you inferred the above from what I actually said. Well that’s your own issue, I see no need to defend something I never said.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Now you're saying we should simply tell rape victims how to suck it up.

I didn’t say that either.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But yeah, I suppose if they complained they'd just be making a mountain out of a molehill.

You can suppose what you like, just don’t try to attribute it to me as if I said it. What I actually said was -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As an aside, Clíona Saidléar is an awful dose, using every opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Perhaps to save us both some time and effort, before you go again, you could address what I actually said, and not just reinterpret what I said to suit yourself.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also said this, maybe you missed it -

so the only risk to them is some tut tutting..

so yeah free to do what they want then..

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So people should be free to threaten rape complainants in the courthouse?
What effect do you think this will have on rape victims who are worried about pressing charges against their rapist?

The threats came after the sentencing. Not before or during.

You really think the supporters of the defendant are going to be happy with losing a case? You think anybody doesn't already know that?

If people really wanted such things to stop, then formal complaints would be made to the Gardai.

Fr_Dougal wrote:

Any threats like that should be followed up and at the very least they should have been arrested for using abusive and threatening language.

So, if someone calls you a wanker, then they should be arrested? That's abusive language. What happens after they're arrested? No. Seriously. What happens to them for insulting you?

It’s difficult enough for rape victims to have to go to court, they should be fully protected from that sort of crap.

Which is completely impractical. Fully protected? The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced. The victim was protected from the defendant. Until the other people break the law, they're not a genuine danger, and following up on everything that might hurt someones feelings, is an awful waste of resources. People make emotional outburst all the time, and the vast majority of them never deliver on their threats.

But sure, campaign to change the law (or perhaps there is a law already, although I doubt it). But to my knowledge, they didn't break the law, which means a formal complaint by someone would have been needed. None was made.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

so the only risk to them is some tut tutting..

so yeah free to do what they want then..

Well, this is going round in circles.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

So, if someone calls you a wanker, then they should be arrested? That's abusive language. What happens after they're arrested? No. Seriously. What happens to them for insulting you?

woah hang on there - insulting someone is a different matter.

"you'll pay for this" is a direct threat of violence in a courtroom. At a person that was vindicated by the courts.

comparing apples with oranges.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court

Crikey, even on this, the "what if the genders were reversed" chestnut.

osarusan

Raconteuse wrote: »

Crikey, even on this, the "what if the genders were reversed" chestnut.

Gotta be shoehorned in to everything at any opportunity.

ELM327

Was anyone present in the court? If so, was there the possibility that the conviction was unwarranted? Innocent men get convicted.

CrankyHaus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So I didn’t say it, but you inferred the above from what I actually said. Well that’s your own issue, I see no need to defend something I never said.

I didn’t say that either.

You can suppose what you like, just don’t try to attribute it to me as if I said it. What I actually said was -

Perhaps to save us both some time and effort, before you go again, you could address what I actually said, and not just reinterpret what I said to suit yourself.

Spare me the semantics.

You literally said people should not be arrested for "this", which was threats and abuse towards the rape victim at the courthouse. If people don't face any sanction for "this", then they are free to do "this". There's no inferring involved, just basic comprehension of the English language.

You literally said that you'd prefer that the rape victim be prepared to deal with the possibility of "it", it being threats and abuse at the courthouse. Again no twisting of your words involved.

You literally dismissed criticism of what occurred as "making a mountain out of a molehill". Again no inferring involved.

Sabre0001

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, this is going round in circles.

To make it simple for everyone, what do you think is an appropriate deterrent for someone who behaves like this?

Fr_Dougal

ELM327 wrote: »

Was anyone present in the court? If so, was there the possibility that the conviction was unwarranted? Innocent men get convicted.

The court found them guilty. I’m sure they have right to appeal, but they were found guilty.

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

Crikey, even on this, the "what if the genders were reversed" chestnut.

Actually, no. It was a question as to whether it was wrong in every situation or just where a female was concerned. A reasonable thing to ask since anewme has come out with many feminist driven threads/posts before.

anewme, answered that it wasn't and such threats should be considered negative in any situation... and I said fair enough. Which it would be.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

woah hang on there - insulting someone is a different matter.

"you'll pay for this" is a direct threat of violence in a courtroom. At a person that was vindicated by the courts.

comparing apples with oranges.

You said abusive and threatening. Abusive is insults.. And "You'll pay for this" is not a direct threat of violence. It's a vague threat. The recipient will pay. Could have any number of meanings depending on the person making the threat. Maybe God will strike them down? Maybe they'll get a terminal illness?

It's a vague threat. If it had been combined with actual physical violence, or further more specific threats, then it would have been clearer, and actionable. It wasn't.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

You said abusive and threatening. Abusive is insults.. And "You'll pay for this" is not a direct threat of violence. It's a vague threat. The recipient will pay. Could have any number of meanings depending on the person making the threat. Maybe God will strike them down? Maybe they'll get a terminal illness?

It's a vague threat. If it had been combined with actual physical violence, or further more specific threats, then it would have been clearer, and actionable. It wasn't.

Why are you downplaying this? They had a blatent lack of respect for the law to make such a statement in a court.
Smacks of people who don't give two f*cks about legal consequences, and think that they can just do as they please.

It doesn't matter if its vague or crystal clear, a threat was made & that's unacceptable to both our legal system and to victims of crimes and shouldn't be tolerated at all.

ChikiChiki

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, I disagree. That’s exactly what it’s doing. I’m not justifying their behaviour, nor do I believe it’s an acceptable way to behave in a Court of Law, but calling for people to be arrested for their behaviour in those circumstances is ridiculously overdramatic and would simply be a waste of time and resources.

Jesus wept:o

That's fine, we will just let people carry out intimidation tactics on the victim with impunity. Not overdramatic, there was a threat made.

ELM327

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The court found them guilty. I’m sure they have right to appeal, but they were found guilty.

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

King of Kings

The lads denied it but they were found guilty in court so its safe to say some people dispute the judgement.
I find it attitude on this thread runs against human nature. If a loved up was sent down for something you believe them to be innocent of surely lashing out at their accuser is natural.

I'd defend a loved one if I believed in their innocence...court judgement or not.

interesting angle in the irish times article when i read it, it was more about these comments than what looks- from similar cases- to be a shakey enough conviction which was then sentenced towards the top of the scale.

threats seem, from what was reported, to have been vague and hardly likely to be the kind of comment that would be followed up- obviously the context changes things somewhat, but then of course the context of a lengthy sentencing also has to be taken into account.

the point about threats to defendants who are cleared is 100% valid of course, and hasnt been answered of course

to elide the question of the fellas ethnicity also imo a deliberate and manipulate choice in the IT article

basically, this wasnt reporting, it was agenda writing.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, no. It was a question as to whether it was wrong in every situation or just where a female was concerned. A reasonable thing to ask since anewme has come out with many feminist driven threads/posts before.

A woman will do. A "female" - it's not a wildlife documentary

Why is it a reasonable or necessary thing to ask?

It brings nothing other than "she has posted "feminist" stuff - bet she's a hypocrite". Yet again the default suspicion of "defence of woman must mean not a defender of men" when there is zero reason to suspect that. Even if she has posted so called feminist views (I've never seen anewme post anything feminist, just criticism of misogyny, which does not automatically mean feminism... and it does not automatically mean being ok with misandry).

She posted about this case. No other case.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

You said abusive and threatening. Abusive is insults.. And "You'll pay for this" is not a direct threat of violence. It's a vague threat. The recipient will pay. Could have any number of meanings depending on the person making the threat. Maybe God will strike them down? Maybe they'll get a terminal illness?

It's a vague threat. If it had been combined with actual physical violence, or further more specific threats, then it would have been clearer, and actionable. It wasn't.

eh no I didn't

Raconteuse

ELM327 wrote: »

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

True. A different case should totally cloud this one.

One eyed Jack

Sabre0001 wrote: »

To make it simple for everyone, what do you think is an appropriate deterrent for someone who behaves like this?

I would suggest it was left to Gardaí to determine the appropriate course of action. They tend to be a hell of a lot more reasonable than the Executive Director of the RCNI at least.

ELM327

King of Kings wrote: »

The lads denied it but they were found guilty in court so its safe to say some people dispute the judgement.
I find it attitude on this thread runs against human nature. If a loved up was sent down for something you believe them to be innocent of surely lashing out at their accuser is natural.

I'd defend a loved one if I believed in their innocence...court judgement or not.

Same.

Raconteuse wrote: »

True. A different case should totally cloud this one.

It's the same issue, trial by media.

When a man is found guilty they are guilty because the court says so
When a man is found not guilty, they are still guilty in the lives of the media.

Sabre0001

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest it was left to Gardaí to determine the appropriate course of action. They tend to be a hell of a lot more reasonable than the Executive Director of the RCNI at least.

So you suggest it be left to the Gardai and Ms Saidléar said that it's a matter for the Gardai. Glad we cleared that up.

One eyed Jack

Sabre0001 wrote: »

So you suggest it be left to the Gardai and Ms Saidléar said that it's a matter for the Gardai. Glad we cleared that up.

Exactly. That’s why I suggested she was using this case as yet another opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill. She is aware of the fact that these circumstances are handled by Gardaí and she is aware of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, so she’s calling on the Gardaí to do what they do already?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why are you downplaying this? They had a blatent lack of respect for the law to make such a statement in a court.
Smacks of people who don't give two f*cks about legal consequences, and think that they can just do as they please.

What legal consequences? The court was not in session. They waited until the legal proceeding were finished.

As for downplaying.. I don't see the outrage. The accused was punished. The victim was vindicated, and protected. Case closed. You seem to be ignoring that no formal charge/complaint was made against anyone... The only people getting offended are the posters on this thread.

It doesn't matter if its vague or crystal clear, a threat was made & that's unacceptable to both our legal system and to victims of crimes and shouldn't be tolerated at all.

Of course it matters. Otherwise it's a slippery slope towards controlling everything that people say in public. It was a vague threat with no accompanying gestures of violence (or they would have said there was). You're simply blowing it out of proportion.

Raconteuse wrote: »

A woman will do. A "female" - it's not a wildlife documentary

Ahh I'll use whatever term I wish to use. Both are accurate. Or are you just seeking to promote controlling another persons speech?

Why is it a reasonable or necessary thing to ask?

Because I wanted to know whether it was driven by an agenda, just as you raised the point to see whether I was driven by an agenda. I asked a question, she answered, I acknowledged, and you're the one who can't let it go. (neither I nor anewme have mentioned it since)

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

eh no I didn't

Sorry. Fr_Dougal did.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

What legal consequences? The court was not in session. They waited until the legal proceeding were finished.

As for downplaying.. I don't see the outrage. The accused was punished. The victim was vindicated, and protected. Case closed.


Of course it matters. Otherwise it's a slippery slope towards controlling everything that people say in public. It was a vague threat with no accompanying gestures of violence (or they would have said there was). You're simply blowing it out of proportion.

It doesn't matter that the it wasn't in session, they were in a court of law and thought it would be acceptable to attempt to intimidate a victim. That shows a blatant disregard for the law to me.

Context is what matters here. If some randomer on the street came up to me and said "you'll pay for this", that would be a vague, nonsensical threat that wouldn't be worthy of much consideration.
But when you are in court to support someone who has been convicted of rape, and you choose to direct that statement at the victim?
That is intimidation and it is a threat.

If it isn't a threat, what do you propose it was? What else could they possibly have meant by what they said?

Fr_Dougal

ELM327 wrote: »

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

Be the change you want to see.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

It doesn't matter that the it wasn't in session, they were in a court of law and thought it would be acceptable to attempt to intimidate a victim. That shows a blatant disregard for the law to me.

Ok. You keep referring to the law. Show me where they broke the law with their behavior. Why do you think the court officials didn't intervene if the law had been broken?

Context is what matters here. If some randomer on the street came up to me and said "you'll pay for this", that would be a vague, nonsensical threat that wouldn't be worthy of much consideration.
But when you are in court to support someone who has been convicted of rape, and you choose to direct that statement at the victim?
That is intimidation and it is a threat.

It's a threat without any form, or accompanying gestures/actions to reinforce the perception of violence/danger. Anyone could argue themselves out of an arrest by referring to many possible meanings, none of which refer to direct harm by the person speaking.

You expect the Gardai to arrest someone for that. Fine. What happens next? What are they charged with and how are they punished? How do you realistically prove that dangerous intent was contained within the threat, and it wasn't an "understandable" emotional outburt that they truly didn't mean. (Understandable because I can imagine what their defense would be like)

Or did you just want them arrested and.. then nothing?

If it isn't a threat, what do you propose it was? What else could they possibly have meant by what they said?

I never said it wasn't a threat. I said it wasn't a direct threat that could be followed up on. And I also said that no formal charge/complaint was made.

gmisk

Just saw on the journal...a woman has been arrested by gardai investigating "threats to kill".

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh I'll use whatever term I wish to use. Both are accurate. Or are you just seeking to promote controlling another persons speech?



Because I wanted to know whether it was driven by an agenda, just as you raised the point to see whether I was driven by an agenda. I asked a question, she answered, I acknowledged, and you're the one who can't let it go. (neither I nor anewme have mentioned it since)

That's exactly the issue. Suspicion of an agenda (for no reason) and whatabouting, rather than just focusing on the case in question.

Not seeking to control anyone's speech, just giving a view.

I'm sorry for having a go but just sick of seeing "if it were a man" stuff directed at women.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Arrested for what? No physical violence. No serious threats. Saying "You're going to pay for this" is too vague a threat for the Gardai to act upon.

There was no actual actionable abuse here. Such shouting is common enough in court rooms, when supporters are unhappy with a verdict. Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/call-for-garda-to-investigate-threats-to-victim-of-sexual-abuse-1.4176723 (you really should have posted the link to the article)

"“No formal complaints have been made by any parties at this time."

Contempt of court at the very least, one would expect.

And verbal abuse with threatening language is still abuse.

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

That's exactly the issue. Suspicion of an agenda (for no reason) and whatabouting, rather than just focusing on the case in question.

Not seeking to control anyone's speech, just giving a view.

I'm sorry for having a go but just sick of seeing "if it were a man" stuff directed at women.

You're welcome to check my threads/posting history. but you'll rarely, if ever, see me use the "reverse the genders" line. I am active on male rights and feminism related threads, just as others are like yourself, and anewme.

And I will always check if I feel there is an agenda being driven. Just as many others on boards will. We do live in a society which has a lot of agendas running with regards to gender. I felt it worth checking in this instance because of the phrasing of her original post. Do notice that I wasn't aggressively querying her post. I asked a question, she answered, and it was left at that.