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; } } }

Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Sensitivity is one thing but you and others seem to be asking for is kid gloves and that just cannot happen when such a serious accusation is made. All aspects of the complainant’s story must be tested.

I’m not anti woman in the slightest - I am a woman. I just think a bit of common sense and a little less emotion is needed in this debate.

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation?

Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated?

I agree, a bit of common sense is what is required....but that seems to be beyond some...mostly those who are happy with our dismal conviction rates.

AudreyHepburn

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

If necessary- evidence is evidence not matter who unsavory it is.

Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation?

Of course and she always would have so that’s non issue really

Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated?

You either treat both with sensitivity while having the freedom to test their stories or you don’t - there can’t be different rules for the different sides

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote:

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

It wasn't paraded. It was submitted as evidence and examined by the jury and barristers as such.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

There is the adversarial nature if a trial, and then there is the plaintiff being put in trial. The nature of rape trials is one of the reasons so few rapes are reported; no woman wants to have her sexual history brought up for discussion, and there is the fact that previously having sex, or ones attire, is not a reason to be raped.

There appears to be something of a misconception about how and when a complainants previous sexual history can be introduced at trial, and just why it's introduced. The accused is always entitled to a fair trial, and if the complainants previous sexual history is considered relevant to the accused defence, then there are differences in the way it can be introduced in Ireland and the UK -

Ireland: Many rape victims still face court questioning on sexual history

Reform of Irish Sexual Offences Legislation
(none of the reforms mentioned in the above article were introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2017 btw, there is still no definition of consent in Irish law in relation to sexual offences, it's still left up to a jury to determine whether or not the accused could have had a genuine belief that the alleged victim consented)

The UK: Law concerning use of sexual history in rape trials 'could be reformed'

Nobody whether they are the alleged victim, or the accused, wants their previous sexual history, or anything which may potentially influence the jury in a negative way, brought up in trial, but things like that if they can be shown to be relevant to the case, either for the prosecution, or the defence, absolutely should be brought up at trial. As traumatising as it may be for the alleged victim, it's also important to remember that a rape trial can be traumatic for the accused, and that's why as much as I can sympathise with a person who claims they have been raped, and I do believe them, I'm also aware that the accused is entitled to a fair trial when they are accused of committing a heinous crime against another human being. I would argue that as traumatic as it may be for the alleged victim, it shouldn't be easy to convict a person of committing rape when there is a reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty of committing rape.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

That can be easily fixed by not allowing show trials and keeping the public out.

Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation?

Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated?

As a juror you need to know all the relevant stuff about alleged victim and defendant.
Then you are tasked with reaching a fair verdict based on what you know. If it is pertinent then it is admissable. And a prosecution/victim representative should be able to intervene if lines are being crossed

I agree, a bit of common sense is what is required....but that seems to be beyond some...mostly those who are happy with our dismal conviction rates.

I see no suggestions how even the above will increase conviction rates. It will make things fairer though.

Colser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not seeing a huge difference between a photo or the actual article.

Evidence is evidence if the defence decides it aids the case.

Where would it stop if you inhibited that right I wonder.

Well as a woman I see a huge difference especially when I fail to see why a photograph wouldn't suffice.Obviously I can only speak for myself and maybe some women wouldn't feel as embarrassed or upset by it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Basil3 wrote: »

I've already skipped through 20 odd pages of consent while sleeping, which doesn't relate to this case.

Mod note: As pointed out a few times and in the above post also, the discussion on sleep and sex stops here now in this thread. It has no bearing on the trial being discussed so no more posts on this, please. No exceptions!

Thanks in advance,

Buford T. Justice

FrancieBrady

Colser wrote: »

Well as a woman I see a huge difference especially when I fail to see why a photograph wouldn't suffice.Obviously I can only speak for myself and maybe some women wouldn't feel as embarrassed or upset by it.

Again, why would a photo not embarrass equally? I don't understand the difference.

Creol1

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seeing as people are fine with "the kitchen sink being thrown at her", can I ask if people here honestly would advise their daughters in a he said she said situation to go to the guards and set a rape case in motion presuming you knew your daughter well enough to know she was certain she had been raped but she had been drunk and took foolish risks that night & evidence that he raped her was pretty much non-existent as in lots of these cases ? Also bearing in mind that when she loses the case because of course there is reasonable doubt. people will tell her it never happened & vilify her for trying to take a good man down. I'm just wondering how many people genuinely think it's worth taking a case in those circumstances??

The decision as to whether to prosecute isn't made by a complainant, it's made by the DPP, i.e., the State. If someone brings a rape allegation to the Garda and the DPP do not prosecute, then the complainant doesn't need to worry about losing the case (actually it would be the State losing the case), being vilified, etc.

If, on the other hand, the DPP do decide to prosecute, then in their expert opinion there must be a reasonable chance that the prosecution would succeed. Accordingly, the way the prosecution system works means that the hypothetical situation you outline of a rape victim having to choose between either not coming forward or going through with a no-hope trial does not arise.

A complainant will never have to proceed with a trial where there is no chance of conviction because there is no public interest in proceeding with pointless trials and so the DPP will not take them.

tretorn

Im still puzzled about the vaginal rape charge against olding.

The CPS from June 2016 till December 2017 insisted that they had enough evidence to charge Olding with this crime. Seeing as the swabs both internal and external that were taken from the woman showed no semen present what other evidence did the police have.

In December 2017 the police said new evidence had come to light, what was this new evidence, its important that we be told what this new evidence was but no further information was given.

Stuart Olding denied vaginally raping the woman, he admitted having consensual oral sex with her.

It looks like his version of events tallied with the evidence available but someone proceeded to charge him with vaginal rape anyway.

This is very concerning particularly since the charge was dropped anyway.

professore

Isn't it funny that those people going on about consent classes are the same people who have a very rigid view of what is rape and seem to have no understanding of how a loving respectful relationship between two adults works in practice.

To say initiating a sex act when one party is asleep is ALWAYS rape and would be seen as such in a court of law is utterly ridiculous. It's a legal stipulation to prevent perverts raping women in their sleep.

In fact it seems to me the end goal is to prevent men from ever initiating anything with a woman unless they can tell by radar or something that the woman is receptive to them.

On the one hand they are open to women having all sorts of depraved and unusual sex acts, yet on the other they want to demonise men for ever thinking about a woman in a sexual way as that's "objectification".

If they wanted men on their side they need to acknowledge men are sexual beings, like the female form, and ALL want to be with women, not just the Brad Pitt types. They don't exist just to serve women. And your best bet to be protected from the real perverts out there are other men.

It's a typical type of middle class woman who is into all this stuff, who never had to work in school or college and daddy pays for everything. That has the gall to talk about male privilege and at the same time turn her nose up at some decent working class guy.who worked for everything he has.

With the false narrative on rape conviction stats, men are rapists and the women as victims mantra, they are clearing the field for a golden age for the true rapists, as they have normalised rape as what every man supposedly wants.

Another clear sign is they go on about how unintelligent men are but radiate their stupid and empty headed rhetoric like mansplaining when you try to have a rational debate with them.

almostover

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation?

Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated?

I agree, a bit of common sense is what is required....but that seems to be beyond some...mostly those who are happy with our dismal conviction rates.

I've asked this to a few posters already. How do you propose that the dismal conviction rate for rape is improved without impinging on a person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guitly?

I myself would far prefer that more punitive sentences be handed down in cases where rape is proven.

Colser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, why would a photo not embarrass equally? I don't understand the difference.

So you're saying that if any woman in your immediate family/friends was upset in this situation and felt a photograph would have been easier to deal with you wouldn't be able to comprehend why she might feel that way?

OwlsZat

Why so much talk about being asleep and consenting. When that was never in question here.

FrancieBrady

almostover wrote: »

I've asked this to a few posters already. How do you propose that the dismal conviction rate for rape is improved without impinging on a person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guitly?

There is a stony silence on that one alright.

Mrsmum

Creol1 wrote: »

The decision as to whether to prosecute isn't made by a complainant, it's made by the DPP, i.e., the State. If someone brings a rape allegation to the Garda and the DPP do not prosecute, then the complainant doesn't need to worry about losing the case (actually it would be the State losing the case), being vilified, etc.

If, on the other hand, the DPP do decide to prosecute, then in their expert opinion there must be a reasonable chance that the prosecution would succeed. Accordingly, the way the prosecution system works means that the hypothetical situation you outline of a rape victim having to choose between either not coming forward or going through with a no-hope trial does not arise.

A complainant will never have to proceed with a trial where there is no chance of conviction because there is no public interest in proceeding with pointless trials and so the DPP will not take them.

I know all that but your daughter comes to you first in the circumstances I stated and askes for your advice. I presume you wouldn't say to her what you have said to me. What would you advise her to do ?

FrancieBrady

Colser wrote: »

So you're saying that if any woman in your immediate family/friends was upset in this situation and felt a photograph would have been easier to deal with you wouldn't be able to comprehend why she might feel that way?

Can you first explain to me how a photo of your underwear is demonstratively different to the actual underwear?

Take the emotive 'parading in public court' out of it for a minute. Which I don't believe actually happened.

RuMan

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seeing as people are fine with "the kitchen sink being thrown at her", can I ask if people here honestly would advise their daughters in a he said she said situation to go to the guards and set a rape case in motion presuming you knew your daughter well enough to know she was certain she had been raped but she had been drunk and took foolish risks that night & evidence that he raped her was pretty much non-existent as in lots of these cases ? Also bearing in mind that when she loses the case because of course there is reasonable doubt. people will tell her it never happened & vilify her for trying to take a good man down. I'm just wondering how many people genuinely think it's worth taking a case in those circumstances??

Its similar to a doctor in a fitness to practice hearing. The victim is simply a witness.
You had it when that butcher Michael Neary removed womens wombs. Chap retired on a full pension. Personally think that is a far bigger affront to women then this case.

Colser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you first explain to me how a photo of your underwear is demonstratively different to the actual underwear?

Take the emotive 'parading in public court' out of it for a minute. Which I don't believe actually happened.

No I won't because to me it's blatantly obvious but I respect your view that you fail to see a difference.

FrancieBrady

Colser wrote: »

No I won't because to me it's blatantly obvious but I respect your view that you fail to see a difference.

Greysquirel09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There appears to be something of a misconception about how and when a complainants previous sexual history can be introduced at trial, and just why it's introduced. The accused is always entitled to a fair trial, and if the complainants previous sexual history is considered relevant to the accused defence, then there are differences in the way it can be introduced in Ireland and the UK -

Ireland: Many rape victims still face court questioning on sexual history

Reform of Irish Sexual Offences Legislation
(none of the reforms mentioned in the above article were introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2017 btw, there is still no definition of consent in Irish law in relation to sexual offences, it's still left up to a jury to determine whether or not the accused could have had a genuine belief that the alleged victim consented)

The UK: Law concerning use of sexual history in rape trials 'could be reformed'

Nobody whether they are the alleged victim, or the accused, wants their previous sexual history, or anything which may potentially influence the jury in a negative way, brought up in trial, but things like that if they can be shown to be relevant to the case, either for the prosecution, or the defence, absolutely should be brought up at trial. As traumatising as it may be for the alleged victim, it's also important to remember that a rape trial can be traumatic for the accused, and that's why as much as I can sympathise with a person who claims they have been raped, and I do believe them, I'm also aware that the accused is entitled to a fair trial when they are accused of committing a heinous crime against another human being. I would argue that as traumatic as it may be for the alleged victim, it shouldn't be easy to convict a person of committing rape when there is a reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty of committing rape.[/quote]

Great comment. What I'm gathering from comments here is that, during the trial, the court should lean slightly towards the "victim" in the case.

almostover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a stony silence on that one alright.

Asked this question on Twitter too and still no answer. It's seems to be easier to villify innocent men and conduct witch hunts under mob rule.

kylith

Colser wrote: »

Well as a woman I see a huge difference especially when I fail to see why a photograph wouldn't suffice.Obviously I can only speak for myself and maybe some women wouldn't feel as embarrassed or upset by it.

What was the significance of her underwear in the first place?

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you first explain to me how a photo of your underwear is demonstratively different to the actual underwear?

Take the emotive 'parading in public court' out of it for a minute. Which I don't believe actually happened.

I'll try and explain it. In your home your wife and daughters if you have them probably keep their underwear in a drawer and regard it as private. Same for your mother and sisters in the home you grew up in. Generally woman do not leave underwear all around the house even with people they love and trust. If a robber comes into a house you will often hear women say one of the most upsetting things was to have their underwear rifled through and many women would then throw it all out. So to most women their underwear is as private as it gets and to have strangers eg the jury touching it is really upsetting. Hope that might help you seeing the difference between a lifeless photo and your real underwear that hasn't even been washed.

Mrsmum

RuMan wrote: »

Its similar to a doctor in a fitness to practice hearing. The victim is simply a witness.
You had it when that butcher Michael Neary removed womens wombs. Chap retired on a full pension. Personally think that is a far bigger affront to women then this case.

I don't see how your reply answers my question.

tritium

kylith wrote: »

What was the significance of her underwear in the first place?

It’s a reasonable point, but I could equally ask what’s the significance of the WhatsApp texts in the first place given the activity was broadly accepted by all parties and the texts add nothing to the consent question.

kylith

tritium wrote: »

It’s a reasonable point, but I could equally ask what’s the significance of the WhatsApp texts in the first place given the activity was broadly accepted by all parties and the texts add nothing to the consent question.

Well, the Whatsapp messages directly referred to the event, and the fact that some were deleted is suspicious.

However, I was genuinely curious as to why her knickers were evidence? We’re they ripped, torn, stained?

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'll try and explain it. In your home your wife and daughters if you have them probably keep their underwear in a drawer and regard it as private. Same for your mother and sisters in the home you grew up in. Generally woman do not leave underwear all around the house even with people they love and trust. If a robber comes into a house you will often hear women say one of the most upsetting things was to have their underwear rifled through and many women would then throw it all out. So to most women their underwear is as private as it gets and to have strangers eg the jury touching it is really upsetting. Hope that might help you seeing the difference between a lifeless photo and your real underwear that hasn't even been washed.

It was deemed to be evidence.
You seem to think you can decide these issues, but you cannot. That would be interfering in the prosecution/defence of a case.
If it is relevant a man's underwear would be also deemed 'evidence'.

I understand the invasion of privacy issue and steps can be taken to avoid unnecessary embarrassing, but objecting to the introduction of evidence because it is somehow inherently private doesn't seem to me to be good practice.

Mrsmum

almostover wrote: »

Asked this question on Twitter too and still no answer. It's seems to be easier to villify innocent men and conduct witch hunts under mob rule.

The answer imo is that if the claimant, usually women were treated with in a more respectful way, more women would report their rapes as it is the court case itself that is so offputting so naturally more cases, more guilty verdicts but then again maybe men don't want more women to test their cases.

smileyj1987

honestly think I'm in the middle with this one, im not sure if it was rape or not. only the people that where present on the night will know if it was or not