Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Ya see what happens if you don't ASK if they want tea and cake first?
wexie wrote: » You animal!! They were probably devastated with the rejection :mad:
Appledreams15 wrote: » What do you mean why would she? Victims in other crimes have lawyers. Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted
freshpopcorn wrote: » We actually asked them back for tea they clearly wanted more.
Synode wrote: » There's a rumour going around that there's a gagging order in place in relation to a certain bit of information concerning a party to the trial. No idea if true but supposedly a court case is being taken by the media this week to lift it. Anyone any idea what court this might take place in and if there's a way to look up the cases?
Creol1 wrote: » How can you have a "defence barrister" if you are not a defendant? The system as it stands allows for the complainant to consult her own lawyer(s); I'm not sure if the complainant has to pay for this herself or not, but regardless, it's not something that requires a barrister representing her in court.All of these are points that would have been for the prosecution to make. The whole prosecution case revolved around her account so it was in their interest as much as hers for the account to be as convincing as possible. Regarding (2), it by no means "obliterates" the theory that the complainant was afraid of being filmed/photographed. After all, Ms Florence herself was concerned the encounter was being filmed, the implication being that someone else in the room could have been doing it. If the complainant has her own legal representation, then what is their status going to be vis-a-vis the prosecution; what if the prosecution disagrees with her lawyers? That would add further complications and I don't know in whose interest it would be. If we're not talking about separate representation, but merely the availability of a lawyer/legal advice to the complainant, then as far as I know this is or can be facilitated under the current system.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Newstalk reporter mentioned last week after the verdict that a 'point of law' was still being fought, and that there was a barring order on the media talking about it. Not a rumour. And that is as much as I know.
wonga77 wrote: » How do you know Jackson thinks it was grand?
Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: » I reckon this will blow over in a week or two. The people protesting the verdict are getting too extreme to gain popular support outside of their peers.
hynesie08 wrote: » She was a witness for the prosecution, how many witnesses have their own solicitor?
Silentcorner wrote: » And yet the prosecution never did... Your own barrister is someone who is exclusively working on your behalf, not the states, and she had no legal representation whatsoever. You do have access to legal representation in this county, but only if the defense wish to examine the victims sexual history. Who cares what their status is, you can say that the victim is not on trial, but yet in every rape case, it always is the victim who is on trial, the least we can do is level the playing field. By the way, I have no problem with the verdict as such, I hope the lads get their lives back on track, there should be marches in the North to abandon the process that names defendants publically before due process, of course the fact that there is no Government in the north probably doesn't help. But if lessons aren't learned from this trial, that would be even more depressing...
Provision of solicitor / barrister A solicitor and, where necessary, a barrister will be appointed by the Board to provide services in each individual case.
RuMan wrote: » He doesnt, he's selectively taking bits of testimony to back up his own bias. All that matters now is that they are innocent. Only a fool would think someone would apologise to a woman they believe falsely accused them of rape. This thread has probably run its course.
tretorn wrote: » She wasnt hysterical, those were Harrisons words for her crying. The taxi driver who was more sober than Harrison said she was crying but he is probably used to crying drunk women in his taxi so he didnt make much of it. She must have been very wuiet when she got into her house because there is no mention anywhere of her disturbing her family. Crocodile tears.
Silentcorner wrote: » The taxi driver said she was barely able to talk to give him the address, that she sobbed the whole way home...he knew exactly what police wanted when they contacted him weeks later...it seems the taxi driver very much remembers that fare, he was able to recall parts of the phone conversation that young Harrisson was having in the back of the cab! What kind of a twisted individual cannot have empathy with a young woman who was that distressed, whatever caused it!
Allinall wrote: » They were found not guilty, and she didn’t accuse them of anything. Think you might need to reflect on who is the fool.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You can have a solicitor or barrister here if you require them.https://www.legalaidboard.ie/en/Our-Services/Legal-Aid-Services/Common-legal-problems/Rape-and-sexual-assault/Legal-aid-for-complainants-in-rape-and-certain-sexual-assault-cases-.html
Appledreams15 wrote: » Bloody hell it gets better in this joke of a system. This is the first thing that the minister said he is going to review: legal representation for the complainant (ie it is ****e and drastically needs to be improved) At the moment: a complainant in the Irish legal system does not have any entitlement to their own legal counsel.
brooke 2 wrote: » I agree it is bizarre! Hard to accept when you first hear it.
Silentcorner wrote: » Thanks for confirming what I've been saying.
Stheno wrote: » How many times do you have to be told this case was in Northern Ireland???
brooke 2 wrote: » But is it not the same situation in the South? The rape victim is just a witness.
hynesie08 wrote: » Do they attend court with you? Always thought they were a pre trial thing?
Appledreams15 wrote: » I quoted what the Minister for Justice REPUBLIC OF IRELAND said this week. Did you look that up?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's more than what you said. You can have representation here.
Silentcorner wrote: » During the court case you are on your own, unless the defence with to examine your sexual history. I can't understand how anybody could have any issue with this, it's not like anyone is suggesting we lower the bar of what reasonable doubt is. In this case, it may well have had no bearing on the verdict, but come on, at least be seen to give a victim a chance!
hynesie08 wrote: » It's the case nearly everywhere as far as I know, only the defendant "lawyers up" unless it's a civil case, the prosecution is a state agency.
Appledreams15 wrote: » You do realise the Minister for Justice in the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND said this right? That he is launching a review?
