DPP decision not to prosecute

Anonymous1509

Hi I am wondering if anyone has any experience with reviewing a case with the DPP when a decision comes back not to prosecute for context here is a little of the backstory 

I (straight female) was SA’d by my (now ex) best friend (also female) we went out one night in town then to a nightclub and back to mine for more drink as you can imagine we were very drunk. she stayed the night which was not unusual she had stayed in my house loads of times as friends do, but that night I passed out drunk and I woke up to her touching me in places she shouldn’t of been

Irish law states :

 A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(c) he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,

Should this alone not be sufficient enough to bring the case to court? 

I am absolutely devastated it was so hard to do the statement and now it all feels like it was for nothing :(

Peregrinus

I am very sorry that this happened to you. I can't imagine how awful this experience must be.

The DPP's policy is not to prosecute unless she expects to get a conviction. So it's not enough that there is evidence that the accused person probably committed a crime; there has to be evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person committed a crime.

We don't know exactly what was in your statement to the Guards and (assuming the Guards interviewed your ex-best friend) we have no idea at all whether she made a statement or, if so, what was in it. So we have no way of knowing what the evidence as a whole looks like. But the commonest reason for the DPP not to bring a prosecution is that the evidence she has is not enough to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.

As the victim of a crime, you can ask the DPP for a summary of the reasons for not prosecuting. You have to do this within 28 days of being notified of the decision, so don't waste time. On this page there's a link to the form you fill out if you want a statement of the reasons for the decision.

If you do this and you're not satisified with the reasons given you can ask for a review of the decision. The review will be carried out by the DPP's office, but by a lawyer in the office who wasn't involved in the initial decision, so they look at the evidence afresh. By all accounts, though, it is unusual for a review to lead to a different decisions unless something has changed since the first decision — e.g. more evidence has become available.

Anonymous1509

thank you so much for your reply

She admitted that it happened in her statement but said it was consensual (sorry probably should have mentioned that) and said we were both drunk. that’s how I don’t understand they came to the decision not to prosecute.
I will definitely ask for the summary of reasons thank you.

Peregrinus

She says it was consensual; you say it was not. There's a straight conflict of evidence there. What is there that will satisfy a jury, beyond any reasonable doubt, that your version is correct and hers is incorrect? That's the question the DPP's office is asking itself.

Plus, another question they'll be asking themselves is: is it possible — or, would a jury think it was possible — that it wasn't consensual but she honestly believed at the time (until you woke up and, presumably, objected) that it was? You both had drink taken, but did she know that you had so much drink taken that you were incapable of consenting to intimate contact? Was there anything you said or did, with drink on you, that she might have understood as indicating assent? It could be something that you now have no recollection of saying or doing but that, in her statement, she says you did.

I hate to pick through the details in this fashion of what must have been an absolutely horrendous, traumatic experience for you. But if this does go to court, that's what is going to happen; the DPP's office has to think about how these things are likely to unfold in a courtroom. An unsuccesful prosecution is a dreadful outcome from everyone's point of view — the victim's; the accused's; the DPP's office — so the DPP really, really doesn't want to prosecute unless there is a strong likelihood of conviction.

Claw Hammer

There is another aspect to these type of cases. where people know each other and are in a social circle, the victim will come under pressure from friends if someone is charged. Frequently a complain is made, charges are brought and then the friends intervene and the complainant requests that the prosecution be halted.

It shouldn't be like this but prosecuting crime is a resource consuming activity and cases between friends and cases turning on consent are notorious for not succeeding.

A further complication is that a witness who has to admit to having had a lot of drink taken has a credibility problem. The accused has to get the benefit of any doubt and the defence will use the drinking to suggest an innocent explanation and you would be challenged with the accuracy of your recollection. The defence counsel will ask how much drink you had and will feign amazement that you are still alive after so much drink and how could you possibly remember everything.

Prosecutions have to be analysed like a proposed tennis match. How is the prosecution going to attack. How will the defence counter it? How can the prosecution overcome the defence response?

You have had a bad experience and you will live with the after effects for life.

The decision not to prosecute was most likely made to avoid making a bad situation worse rather than being a refusal to vindicate your rights.

phildub

How long ago did it happen, we're there any other persons present? Unfortunately the DPP can't prosecute every accusation that is made to them, and quite frankly you don't want to be put through a full trail and giving evidence only for jury to find her not guilty. I am very sorry this happened to you and I hope, whatever happens, you can find some closure and peace.

endofrainbow

Please contact Rape crisis centre for help with your ordeal.