How does this get a conviction?

kowloonkev

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2023/0725/1396364-courts-rape/

I was just reading this story and while I don't want to focus on the persons specifically, but use it as an example, I was wondering how the jury can convict in this type of case and not have any doubt.

The article doesn't mention any evidence which they would normally do if there was something significant, and the man is denying all charges. Maybe there was some evidence that has been omitted here, but I would find it strange to leave that out.

Does anyone know anything more about this case?

suvigirl

Why would a newspaper article publish the entire evidence of a case?

It's a synopsis, for the paper.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058306410/how-does-this-get-a-conviction

The fact that the victim waived her anonymity in order that to ensure that her father was pictured and named, doesn’t mean that witnesses, probably close family, who probably gave statements and were maybe cross examined by the defence team should also be named and pictured.

Cases like this are by their nature extremely sensitive and the media wouldn’t publish too many details.

Rest assured that the DPP wouldn’t have let it come to court if there wasn’t plenty of evidence and the father would have had a good defence team. The prosecution had to prove to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, his defence would have challenged every bit of evidence, but the jury didn’t believe him.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058306410/how-does-this-get-a-conviction

I don’t know anything about this particular case, but in others that I have come across;

The credibility of the alleged victim is a huge element.

The evidence thereafter tends to circumstantial, but enough of it will convince a jury.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120895665#Comment_120895665

I sat on a jury for a case that, while not as severe as this, shared some similarites. In that case the evidence was pretty minimal and all circumstantial. Some of the arguments the prosecution made were just straight up bizarre and trying to make something sinister out of something pretty normal. Obviously, this case could be different but just because it went to court doesn't mean there was plenty of evidence.

Peregrinus

What's reported in the article is the victim impact statement, which comes as part of the sentencing process, after the defendant has been convicted. The actual trial is likely to have been some weeks ago. Because this report doesn't cover the trial, we have no idea what evidence was presented at the trial, or who gave evidence.

Googling might find earlier media reports of the trial. Or, it might not — newspapers and media organisations no longer have the resources to put reporters in every court, so many trials go unreported, or are reported (like this one) only at the sentencing stage. And trials of charges of child sex abuse in particular often go unreported, since before anyone is convicted reporting restrictions mean that nobody can be named and no details can be given that might identify anyone. That makes reporting quite difficult.

spaceHopper

Convicting somebody is a very difficult thing for a jury to do (I've been on one), if there is the slightest doubt they will acquit. Given they didn't in this case I can't see how he's anything but guilty.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120897908#Comment_120897908

It really depends on the jury. The one I was on, that certainly was not the case. There was literally a few people on who when we first started talking about it said they had their doubts but were voting guilty. This is after the judge spent a lot of time going over loads of things including what reasonable doubt was and how you could believe the victim 100% but still have reasonable doubts and difference between unreasonable and reasonable doubt (the judge was actually great).

When we did our deliberations, I would say there was about 5 people firmly guilty or not guilty. The rest probably could have been swayed either way easily enough. In the end we couldn't come to a unanimous decision so the judge said he would accept a 10/2 vote. I think if 1 or 2 of the 5 had been firmly in the other camp then we would have had a different verdict. Basically the 5 who talked the most and debated the most influenced the others. What ever way 3 or 4 of those 5 were arguing for, was the verdict.

I liked serving on a jury and found it interesting. I would happily do it again. However, if I was innocent I wouldn't want a jury deciding my fate.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120895178#Comment_120895178

Nobody is asking for the entire evidence. Usually they would include some key case defining evidence. I couldn't find anything on RTE.

Okay I am too lazy to search thoroughly but I can't think of what evidence there could be to actually prove such an accusation beyond reasonable doubt. The same goes for a lot of these old cases where there is no physical evidence.

I'm just thinking if I was sitting on a jury how could I be sure that someone did something many years ago if there is no physical evidence or records. I don't know how they get to court in all honestly.

Even these days such cases are hard to convict even with some evidence (thinking some footballers recently in the news; albeit in England).

I'm not here to argue or suggest innocence in this or any other case - I'm just interested because I think I would need compelling proof and I'm wondering what kind of evidence would be used in this kind of case, because it seems it would just be his word against hers?

spaceHopper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120898178#Comment_120898178

The one I was on was good, nobody wanted to convict. The accused was an idiot but the "victim" had started the trouble and probably should have been charged, he'd headbutted the accuesed. It all came down to one witness who had just arrived in the pub and wasn't drunk.

Discodog

A friend of mine was on a UK Jury in a child abuse case. There was the word of a teenage victim & the word of the accused with not a shred of actual evidence. All the circumstantial evidence pointed to innocence. The Jury couldn't decide & "in order not to be there too long" decided to acquit on one charge but convict on another. This meant that they believed that the victim lied about the second occasion but believed them for the first.

My friend has remained disturbed by this & is convinced that the accused, serving a long sentence, is innocent.

Witcher

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120911870#Comment_120911870

This meant that they believed that the victim lied

Eh, no it doesn't.

Discodog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912069#Comment_120912069

Actually I agree but it does suggest that the account of the other incident was not believed by the jury. UK Ministry of Justice study found that 3% of complaints were malicious. So on UK figures around 75 people are falsely sentenced per year.

Maybe that's a price that has to be payed but not if you are one of the 75.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912355#Comment_120912355

Do you have a link? 3% of complaints may be malicious, that doesn't mean 3% of convictions are wrong.

Complaints don't automatically lead to convictions

And a not guilty verdict means that something has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the complainant was lying.

wotzgoingon

I have no idea about this case but I remember a good few years ago two families lived beside each other and disliked each other. One family made up a story that a son of the other family raped their daughter. He must have got a large sentence as it was only the daughters guilty conscience when got older she went to the Gardaí and told them the truth that they made it all up. So you cannot always believe a victim. I'm not saying that is the case here though.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912445#Comment_120912445

And there is a record of this girl and her family being prosecuted yes? Because if she admitted that they lied, then they would absolutely be prosecuted.

And no doubt innocent rapist would sue the family, which obviously would be recorded somewhere also.

wotzgoingon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912477#Comment_120912477

I don't think they did. But that was a true case what I said.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912484#Comment_120912484

Not a chance.

If someone went to prison for rape & it later transpired that it was a false allegation, then they absolutely would be prosecuted.

Do you think the rapist that went to prison would do nothing?

wotzgoingon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912528#Comment_120912528

It was a real case but I never followed it up. I read it on a news site a long time ago(many years ago). I tried googling for it but it turns out it's a pretty common thing for women to do so it seems as the cases that come up are all this year so if that's the case it must happen a load of times every year. re. women claiming they were raped.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912559#Comment_120912559

No, it's not common.

Discodog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912416#Comment_120912416

Approximately 3% of the rape allegations were identified as malicious (determined to be intentionally false). Surely intentionally false suggests someone is lying ?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217471/understanding-progression-serious-cases.pdf

I am not, in any way, advocating for offenders but any justice system must accept that wrongful convictions occur. This poor man served 17 years & was not eligible for early release because he refused to admit guilt.

He will have to pay the government for 17 years board & lodging.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912559#Comment_120912559

And you didn’t find news reports of this happening “loads of times” in recent years, certainly not in Ireland.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912612#Comment_120912612

Of course malicious means lying. As I pointed out, complaints do not equal convictions.

What poor man? The one your friends jury found guilty?

Discodog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912638#Comment_120912638

This one. Apologies as the link didn't appear

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912647#Comment_120912647

That was a miscarriage of justice.

it has nothing to do with malicious complaints.

Beefcake82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912647#Comment_120912647

that man should be paid a substantial sum of money for what he has had to endure.

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912647#Comment_120912647

That's a fking scary story.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912528#Comment_120912528

You will come across false complaints, malicious or otherwise in all aspects of criminal law. Sexually based offences are no different. There can be various motivations on the part of the complaint.

False allegations are taken seriously, and there have been several convictions in recent years of those found guilty of such acts (Including false allegations of rape).

These cases aren’t always tried however, there can be a variety of factors at play.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914118#Comment_120914118

Yes, I know.

If someone admitted making a false accusation, as the poster suggested happened, then they would absolutely be prosecuted.

dodzy

if it’s even possible to look like a dirty bastard, he ticks that box in spades.

kowloonkev

This thread was more intended to look at how the laws and courts deal with such cases, particular historical cases which tend to have no physical evidence. I'm not particularly interested in specific cases or false accusations. I just want to know if the bar of proof seems lower in these cases to press charges and to convict, and if so, why? Is there some sort of societal guilt going on that we missed the abuse of children or turned a blind eye.

I know it's extremely hard on victims and there are many many victims. The fact that they are children means that they wouldn't have the wherewithal to keep a record/evidence or make a report. They probably don't even know a crime is being committed against them. That makes it even more emotive and more of an outrage for society. We all want justice for all victims, and we want justice meated out to all abusers. But do we want it so badly that as jurors we don't need as much evidence? Should the bar be lower to prove guilt in these cases?