nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Innocent until proven guilty?

MagicIRL

I'm not looking to discuss any details regarding any on-going judicial cases. Let me make that part abundantly clear.

As many of you are probably aware, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are currently on trial for alleged rape.

The victim of this alleged crime has been granted complete anonymity. You'll only see her mentioned as "victim", "young woman" etc, never by her full name. This is, of course, the proper way of dealing with the matter. The woman has, allegedly, suffered enough without her name and face being plastered everywhere.

However, why is it that only one party is granted full anonymity and the other party is not? It seems, to me anyway, and perhaps someone can change my mind on this, to be completely unfair. I am all for naming and shaming someone when they're convicted of a crime; especially one as heinous as rape, but as things stand currently, both these men are innocent.

In the event that this case is ruled in favour of the accused, then they'll both have just spent weeks/months with their names being dragged through the gutter and for nothing. They'll forever be associated with the case.

What do you think, AH? Should there be complete anonymity for both sides until a verdict is made?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sleepy

TBH, she's nowhere as anonymous as she thinks. There have been photos lifted from her social media profiles doing the rounds on Whatsapp and the likes for weeks.

But yes, I'd agree. ALL parties should be anonymous in such cases (and AFAIK are under Irish law).

Are Am Eye

It's not easy to fit her all into one photo.

seamus

Yep, I think it's horrendous that these guys have their names called out at every news bulletin, and yet she has the benefit of anonymity. Even friends of theirs are having their names called out on the radio, and hers don't.

Anonymity should be guaranteed for all parties until the end.

cantdecide

This is a no-brainer. Even a demonstrably completely false accusation can ruin a person's life. I have no idea why this should even be discussed.

Pyr0

How else are they supposed to whip the public into a frenzy?!

Take your sensible suggestion and get out, OP.

:mad:

hatrickpatrick

100% agreed, and for all serious crime not just sexual crime. Regardless of the outcome, this will permanently hamper their professional careers and that simply is not ok in my opinion. My dad reckons they'll never be allowed to play internationally again because of the inevitable bad publicity.

py2006

If she is lying I hope her photos and name flood the media so men can avoid her in future.

Sickens me that women can make accusations against men and they are named and photos printed. Even when women are proved liars they still maintain anomyomity.

valoren

It's not only the fact their names are publicised but it's the reporting of the details on a daily basis that need to be considered as well. Imagine going through that process, where you are completely innocent and cleared of wrong doing and knowing that despite being vindicated everyone with a passing interest in it knows intimate details of your sex life while the person who subjected you to it get's relative anonymity.

[Deleted User]

TBH the main thing I've taken from this case is that if the complainant was close to me I wouldn't be able to advise her to go to the police/Gardai. Whatever happens there's a few dozen people who know who she is and people sharing online. The raking of coals in the media and line of questioning, is there an end-game that's positive for her?

Anyway, yeah I'd be in favour of anonymity for all for a time at least. Would still have the butthole press reporting the "salacious" details til they can do a reveal at the end.

Mint Sauce

100% should not have been named. Unfortunately, as a result, I fear even if found innocent, careers can be finished, even just based on association, or an accusation.

emeldc

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, she's nowhere as anonymous as she thinks. There have been photos lifted from her social media profiles doing the rounds on Whatsapp and the likes for weeks.

But yes, I'd agree. ALL parties should be anonymous in such cases (and AFAIK are under Irish law).

Nope, don't think so. Tom Humphreys was named before conviction. I'm no voice for rapists or pedophiles but it seems anyone can accuse a person of doing all manner of things knowing full well that the 'victim' remains anonymous while the 'perpetrator' is vilified in the press. Grossly unfair regardless of the outcome.

cantdecide

What is the mechanism that determines who is named or not?

[Deleted User]

cantdecide wrote: »

What is the mechanism that determines who is named or not?

Are Am Eye

These guys will have this stigma now regardless of the outcome.

The origin of all this is the idea that court cases are held in public.
Anyone can walk into a court and watch proceedings.
This is then extended to the media. If justice is dispensed in public view then let the media report on it. Afterwards they brought in the idea of giving injured parties in sexual cases anonymity. And under 18s in the dock.

One of the problems with extending it is as to where you draw the line. Is it just with sexual cases? Murder? Should all accused persons have anonymity?
In the age of motial sedia really court cases would have to be held behind closed doors. I wouldn't be happy with that in this very corrupt country. In a normal society with some degree of ethics it would be doable.

Riskymove

emeldc wrote: »

Tom Humphreys was named before conviction. .

No trial - he pleaded guilty

Squall Leonhart

py2006 wrote: »

If she is lying I hope her photos and name flood the media so men can avoid her in future.

Sickens me that women can make accusations against men and they are named and photos printed. Even when women are proved liars they still maintain anomyomity.

I'd be all for that as well, but unfortunately I think it's rarely the case that somebody is proven to be lying (even if they are!), but more a case of the accused is found not guilty due to lack of evidence, insufficient evidence etc. It's not so much that a person has been found innocent, it's just that they've been found not guilty. To protect the 'innocent' party (accuser who made up the lies!) in these cases, it's still not possible to name the accuser if they choose to remain anonymous.

[Deleted User]

Mud sticks. Even if proven not guilty some people will always label them. They may be targets for false claims in the future.

I think in the South they can't be named till conviction. As far as I remember Humphries wasn't named till found guilty. Prominent sports reporter was how they described him before conviction

Fian

People charged with criminal offences are not entitled to anonymity generally. There is an exception in certain sexual offences where their names are prohibited from being published in order to protect the anonymity of the victim. The law takes the view that this is necessary to encourage complainants coming forward because of the embarrassment and potential stigma that could attach to victims for these offences. The stigma and embarrassment has probably diminished in the time between the rule being formulated and today, modern society sees these things differently from the historic view.

Where the identity of the victim would not be revealed by publication of the names of the accused or where the victim waives the entitlement to anonymity the accused are not protected, in the same way that a murder accused's identity can be reported.

If anonymity were abolished every good looking and photogenic victim would have their photo all over the press. In fact probably all victims with lots of speculation on whether their story was "credible".

Boom_Bap

Thread Closed

I can see that this has been opened with the intention of discussion anonymity, but a specific case has been mentioned in the OP, and asked not to be mentioned by the OP. But it was mentioned in the 2nd post and the trend continued.

Ongoing court cases cannot be discussed.

Buford T. Justice XIX

py2006 wrote: »

If she is lying I hope her photos and name flood the media so men can avoid her in future.

Sickens me that women can make accusations against men and they are named and photos printed. Even when women are proved liars they still maintain anomyomity.

Mod note: I corrected your punctuation there.

DO NOT let it happen again!

Buford T. Justice