tupenny wrote: » I was raped by a taxi driver. The gardai hassled me loads, but i wouldnt make an official complaint. Reading all this makes me sure i made the right decision
tretorn wrote: » What were they appalled about. Her evidence had the potential to put four young men in jail for years, now again please specify what was appalling about her treatment. She had to be questioned on her wild inconsistent claims, she sat behind a curtain while four men who were named because of her had to sit in a dock. I think she was handled with kid gloves which is probably a tactic. She did cry during some of the evidence but the judge toldd the jury not to take too much notice of that, it didnt necessarily mean anything. The judge also described the men as being of good character, it was nice for them and their families to hear that.
tupenny wrote: I was raped by a taxi driver. The gardai hassled me loads, but i wouldnt make an official complaint. Reading all this makes me sure i made the right decision
Silentcorner wrote: » C__MC wrote: » Theres a few Morans going about saying that the taxi drivers evidence is more beneficial than dara Florence- the world has gone utterly mad. Surely if the taxi driver was that concerned for her as he stressed, he would of reported it there and then. Anyway what’s this barring order about? Can anyone pm me any links? What are you on about? who is saying that? Who gives you the authority to call a person a moran? Why would the taxi driver report it, why would you have an issue with his testimony?
C__MC wrote: » Theres a few Morans going about saying that the taxi drivers evidence is more beneficial than dara Florence- the world has gone utterly mad. Surely if the taxi driver was that concerned for her as he stressed, he would of reported it there and then. Anyway what’s this barring order about? Can anyone pm me any links?
Mr.H wrote: » At the end of the day no gardai would ever not take your story seriously. I know this to be fact. They hassled you loads??? What asked you questions? Thats how you build a case. Again if your telling the truth I apologise but I have heard loads of false stories over the last few days on social media of people claiming that the gardai dismissed them. Bollox. It is their job to take every case seriously. Even when they really don't believe it they take it seriously and work the case. If you were truly a victim the talk to the police. They will help you. The mob won't. Getting innocent people vilified will hit male that taxi driver pay for his crime.
cloudatlas wrote: » Because of the following: Why is this so hard to understand for the majority of posters in AH! Arrrrrgh!
veronymus wrote: I'll just leave this here - The People (DPP) v Bartley 1997 I would always be reluctant to talk in absolutes.
C__MC wrote: » I find it utterly odd that suddenly his interpretation is deemed more beneficial than dara Florence who was sober and walked in on what occured. Not withstanding the fact she was offered an invite by Jackson. That’s the point I was making. It’s seems the #ibelieveher brigade aren’t willingly to believe an eye witness account who give a testimony under oath.
cloudatlas wrote: While accepting the verdict that acquitted the four men, certainly anyone who followed the Belfast trial over the past nine weeks would have had to appreciate how traumatising the entire trial experience, particularly the experience of giving testimony and being cross-examined in court, must have been for the young woman complainant.
Silentcorner wrote: » There is something very emotive about the topic of rape and sexual assault that is deep in us, it is a weird kink. The case in Listowel a number of years ago is a case in point, what other crime conviction, would inspire about 50 locals to cue up and shake the convicts hand in front of the victim.
cloudatlas wrote: » Because of the following: "Yesterday’s Belfast rape trial verdict has generated concern among many organisations working with survivors of rape that it may discourage the reporting of sexual abuse to the Garda. Reporting rates for crimes of rape and sexual abuse are already very low; at least partly due to the fear of many victims that they may be subject to a “secondary victimisation” in court. While accepting the verdict that acquitted the four men, certainly anyone who followed the Belfast trial over the past nine weeks would have had to appreciate how traumatising the entire trial experience, particularly the experience of giving testimony and being cross-examined in court, must have been for the young woman complainant. So, in this context, it is really important to emphasise some significant procedural differences between the trial of rape in Northern Ireland, and in this jurisdiction. In particular, our laws provide much greater levels of privacy both for the accused and the complainant than the relevant law in Belfast. In rape trials conducted here, not only does the complainant remain anonymous (although illegal social media breaches of this rule have been noted); but in addition the names of accused persons are not made public unless they are convicted. Our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of 'coercive control', again a very important victim-focused measure. This is to protect the reputation of accused persons in the event of an acquittal, but it also has the effect of reducing gratuitously salacious media coverage – fairer for accused and complainants alike. This disparity alone would have made an enormous difference to the way in which the Belfast trial was reported upon, as much of the media and public interest related to the men’s identities. Public exclusion Secondly, members of the public are excluded from attending rape trials in Irish courts. This rule would again have made an immense difference in the conduct of a trial such as this; and is clearly fairer both to complainants and to accused persons". -Ivana Bacik Irish Times In addition, our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of “coercive control”, again a very important victim-focused measure. And our recently passed Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 has introduced substantial new procedural protections for victims within the trial process, and for the first time creates a statutory definition of consent – very important in those cases which turn on that precise issue. An acquittal in a rape case does not of course necessarily mean that the jury did not believe the complainant, or believed the complainant did not consent, because the prosecution must not only prove lack of consent, but also prove the “mens rea” or mental state of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It is indisputably difficult to prove rape – a fact which emerged in a different context during the hearings of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment. Thus, although we have different procedures from Northern Ireland in some respects, we know that more needs to be done here too, in order to reassure victims that the process through which they will go if they make a complaint of rape will be fair to them, as well as to the accused. For a start, all the relevant protective provisions in the 2017 Act should be commenced as a matter of urgency. Legal representation Secondly, we should look again at the issue of separate legal representation for complainants. One striking aspect of the Belfast trial was the fact that the young woman complainant was alone in court, without legal representation; whereas each of the four accused had a separate legal team, as was their right. This meant that she could be subjected to cross-examination by four separate barristers. The same situation applies here, although we do have some minimal rights of legal representation for complainants. Law reform alone is obviously not sufficient to address the causes of rape or sexual assault The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act allows limited legal representation for complainants in rape cases, not extending to advocacy rights. The 2001 Sex Offenders Act provides that the complainant can have access to a legally aided barrister to argue on her behalf in court where the accused seeks permission to bring forward so-called “sexual history” evidence. The question now is whether we should extend that right of representation further for complainants in rape cases, particularly where there are several defendants. This is certainly one potential reform that should be examined to see if it could be implemented without unduly encroaching on the due process rights of the accused. General rights of legal representation are already provided for in other European jurisdictions, such as France and Belgium, where in rape cases the complainant is legally represented as a party in the case (a partie civile) – and research we conducted some years ago showed the cross-examination process there to be less hostile to the victim as a result." Why is this so hard to understand for the majority of posters in AH! Arrrrrgh!
Mr.H wrote: » There would have to be other reasons at play for a member of the gardai not to take a potential victim seriously. From the people I know I am talking in absolutes.
Mr.H wrote: » If you were I am sorry to hear that. But you are a stranger in the internet who can say anything. I can tell you that I was subject of racial abuse. You don't know if that's true, but I can say it. I can tell you how as a child someone very close to me touched me inappropriately. Again you don't know if that's true or not. I am not trying to make light out of your story. My point is here is no place to get public sympathy. It can be viewed as split to get your point across. At the end of the day no gardai would ever not take your story seriously. I know this to be fact. They hassled you loads??? What asked you questions? Thats how you build a case. Again if your telling the truth I apologise but I have heard loads of false stories over the last few days on social media of people claiming that the gardai dismissed them. Bollox. It is their job to take every case seriously. Even when they really don't believe it they take it seriously and work the case. The girl in this trial was treated with discretion, dignity and sensitivity. The evidence and version of events that were put forward were to help her. They were the supposed facts and they did not add up to her being raped by these men. After the case her name is still untarnished. Yer face is still hidden. Nobody is saying she lied. On the other hand these men were cleared. Yet a group of idiots can't seem to obey the law. They claim she was mishandled yet a moronic mob want them punished anyway for the fictional crimes of fictitious stories, made up by people standing up driving this mob on. If you were truly a victim the talk to the police. They will help you. The mob won't. Getting innocent people vilified will hit male that taxi driver pay for his crime.
tretorn wrote: » cloudatlas wrote: » Because of the following: "Yesterday’s Belfast rape trial verdict has generated concern among many organisations working with survivors of rape that it may discourage the reporting of sexual abuse to the Garda. Reporting rates for crimes of rape and sexual abuse are already very low; at least partly due to the fear of many victims that they may be subject to a “secondary victimisation” in court. While accepting the verdict that acquitted the four men, certainly anyone who followed the Belfast trial over the past nine weeks would have had to appreciate how traumatising the entire trial experience, particularly the experience of giving testimony and being cross-examined in court, must have been for the young woman complainant. So, in this context, it is really important to emphasise some significant procedural differences between the trial of rape in Northern Ireland, and in this jurisdiction. In particular, our laws provide much greater levels of privacy both for the accused and the complainant than the relevant law in Belfast. In rape trials conducted here, not only does the complainant remain anonymous (although illegal social media breaches of this rule have been noted); but in addition the names of accused persons are not made public unless they are convicted. Our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of 'coercive control', again a very important victim-focused measure. This is to protect the reputation of accused persons in the event of an acquittal, but it also has the effect of reducing gratuitously salacious media coverage – fairer for accused and complainants alike. This disparity alone would have made an enormous difference to the way in which the Belfast trial was reported upon, as much of the media and public interest related to the men’s identities. Public exclusion Secondly, members of the public are excluded from attending rape trials in Irish courts. This rule would again have made an immense difference in the conduct of a trial such as this; and is clearly fairer both to complainants and to accused persons". -Ivana Bacik Irish Times In addition, our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of “coercive control”, again a very important victim-focused measure. And our recently passed Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 has introduced substantial new procedural protections for victims within the trial process, and for the first time creates a statutory definition of consent – very important in those cases which turn on that precise issue. An acquittal in a rape case does not of course necessarily mean that the jury did not believe the complainant, or believed the complainant did not consent, because the prosecution must not only prove lack of consent, but also prove the “mens rea” or mental state of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It is indisputably difficult to prove rape – a fact which emerged in a different context during the hearings of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment. Thus, although we have different procedures from Northern Ireland in some respects, we know that more needs to be done here too, in order to reassure victims that the process through which they will go if they make a complaint of rape will be fair to them, as well as to the accused. For a start, all the relevant protective provisions in the 2017 Act should be commenced as a matter of urgency. Legal representation Secondly, we should look again at the issue of separate legal representation for complainants. One striking aspect of the Belfast trial was the fact that the young woman complainant was alone in court, without legal representation; whereas each of the four accused had a separate legal team, as was their right. This meant that she could be subjected to cross-examination by four separate barristers. The same situation applies here, although we do have some minimal rights of legal representation for complainants. Law reform alone is obviously not sufficient to address the causes of rape or sexual assault The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act allows limited legal representation for complainants in rape cases, not extending to advocacy rights. The 2001 Sex Offenders Act provides that the complainant can have access to a legally aided barrister to argue on her behalf in court where the accused seeks permission to bring forward so-called “sexual history” evidence. The question now is whether we should extend that right of representation further for complainants in rape cases, particularly where there are several defendants"unduly encroaching on the due process rights of the accused." In the whole article this is about the only reference to the rights of the accused. If you go to the police alleging someone has raped you the least you can expect is to be questioned in court about your allegation. There is no way round this scenario, your discomfort at being questioned in detail pales into insignificance when put beside the reality of what it means . Where does Ivana say the accuser shouldn't be questioned? Also you are assuming things already, equally it must be terrifying to sit in court and face your rapist.
cloudatlas wrote: » Because of the following: "Yesterday’s Belfast rape trial verdict has generated concern among many organisations working with survivors of rape that it may discourage the reporting of sexual abuse to the Garda. Reporting rates for crimes of rape and sexual abuse are already very low; at least partly due to the fear of many victims that they may be subject to a “secondary victimisation” in court. While accepting the verdict that acquitted the four men, certainly anyone who followed the Belfast trial over the past nine weeks would have had to appreciate how traumatising the entire trial experience, particularly the experience of giving testimony and being cross-examined in court, must have been for the young woman complainant. So, in this context, it is really important to emphasise some significant procedural differences between the trial of rape in Northern Ireland, and in this jurisdiction. In particular, our laws provide much greater levels of privacy both for the accused and the complainant than the relevant law in Belfast. In rape trials conducted here, not only does the complainant remain anonymous (although illegal social media breaches of this rule have been noted); but in addition the names of accused persons are not made public unless they are convicted. Our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of 'coercive control', again a very important victim-focused measure. This is to protect the reputation of accused persons in the event of an acquittal, but it also has the effect of reducing gratuitously salacious media coverage – fairer for accused and complainants alike. This disparity alone would have made an enormous difference to the way in which the Belfast trial was reported upon, as much of the media and public interest related to the men’s identities. Public exclusion Secondly, members of the public are excluded from attending rape trials in Irish courts. This rule would again have made an immense difference in the conduct of a trial such as this; and is clearly fairer both to complainants and to accused persons". -Ivana Bacik Irish Times In addition, our new Domestic Violence legislation, currently before the Dáil, will introduce a much-needed new offence of “coercive control”, again a very important victim-focused measure. And our recently passed Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 has introduced substantial new procedural protections for victims within the trial process, and for the first time creates a statutory definition of consent – very important in those cases which turn on that precise issue. An acquittal in a rape case does not of course necessarily mean that the jury did not believe the complainant, or believed the complainant did not consent, because the prosecution must not only prove lack of consent, but also prove the “mens rea” or mental state of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It is indisputably difficult to prove rape – a fact which emerged in a different context during the hearings of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment. Thus, although we have different procedures from Northern Ireland in some respects, we know that more needs to be done here too, in order to reassure victims that the process through which they will go if they make a complaint of rape will be fair to them, as well as to the accused. For a start, all the relevant protective provisions in the 2017 Act should be commenced as a matter of urgency. Legal representation Secondly, we should look again at the issue of separate legal representation for complainants. One striking aspect of the Belfast trial was the fact that the young woman complainant was alone in court, without legal representation; whereas each of the four accused had a separate legal team, as was their right. This meant that she could be subjected to cross-examination by four separate barristers. The same situation applies here, although we do have some minimal rights of legal representation for complainants. Law reform alone is obviously not sufficient to address the causes of rape or sexual assault The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act allows limited legal representation for complainants in rape cases, not extending to advocacy rights. The 2001 Sex Offenders Act provides that the complainant can have access to a legally aided barrister to argue on her behalf in court where the accused seeks permission to bring forward so-called “sexual history” evidence. The question now is whether we should extend that right of representation further for complainants in rape cases, particularly where there are several defendants"unduly encroaching on the due process rights of the accused." In the whole article this is about the only reference to the rights of the accused. If you go to the police alleging someone has raped you the least you can expect is to be questioned in court about your allegation. There is no way round this scenario, your discomfort at being questioned in detail pales into insignificance when put beside the reality of what it means .
blanch152 wrote: » brooke 2 wrote: » Some posters don't seem to realise that a lot of people went on those marches at the weekend because they were appalled at the treatment of the complainant in the witness box. Yes, they protested outside the Irish Department of Justice about a trial that happened in the UK. Not only bizarre, but very very stupid.
brooke 2 wrote: » Some posters don't seem to realise that a lot of people went on those marches at the weekend because they were appalled at the treatment of the complainant in the witness box.
tupenny wrote: Went as far as the garda ringing my parents house and telling my dad all . Just so I'd bring it to court . Tbh you've proven why people dont speak up. People don't want to believe. Some people
Mr.H wrote: » People don't wanna believe mostly out of ignorance. Others don't believe because they can't see why something is the way it's portrayed.I know of real similar stories and I'm not saying I don't believe yours. I'm saying that I have heard many fake stories in the last few days that are cruel and manipulate. They try to push home a non point and are damaging to real victims. I promise you that if you are a real victim you will be heard. Of course not pursuing it in court is just stupid. No offense intended at all but how can you get justice with court? A crime can only be prosecuted if there is a victim. The gardai can hardly push ahead on hearsay? The laws in this country are in need of change but they do work. The truth comes out 9 times out of 10. That's the best we can hope for. But your story does not make these men guilty. What is being done to them now will not bring you or others like you, justice.
Mr.H wrote: » cloudatlas wrote: While accepting the verdict that acquitted the four men, certainly anyone who followed the Belfast trial over the past nine weeks would have had to appreciate how traumatising the entire trial experience, particularly the experience of giving testimony and being cross-examined in court, must have been for the young woman complainant. Not traumatic for four innocent men who could have been convicted for a crime they didn't commit? Hell they were found not guilty and are still being punished
Silentcorner wrote: » But you're just a person on an internet forum trying to make a point, we have no reason to believe you either.When it comes to rape, the truth DOES NOT come out in 9 out of 10 cases...far from it! That is one of the reasons behind these protests, real victims are not being heard!
cloudatlas wrote: » You are putting words in the mouth of the person writing the article. She also says quite clearly that she accepted the verdict (not good enough for you unless emotive language is used then go read a tabloid). She is a lawyer they take cases and analyse procedure.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Almost everybody on this thread uses the same prelude...'I accept the verdict....but....'
emeraldwinter wrote: » How do we arrive at a figure why have courts or even due process ?
tretorn wrote: » There is no way round this scenario, your discomfort at being questioned in detail pales into insignificance when put beside the reality of what it means for the person who is accused of raping you.
The young woman was visibly shaking as she stood just a few feet in front of the three men accused of raping her. The judge had ordered her to stand there and point to exactly who, according to her account, did what to her. During the trial it was alleged the men had poured vodka over the pregnant woman’s face, before taking it in turns to rape her. She also alleged she had been urinated on and locked in a wardrobe. When the trial resumed the next day there was no sign of the woman. A garda explained the woman’s boyfriend woke to find a note from her reading: “Don’t be mad, I can’t go today. I’m terrified. I love you. I will be with my friends.” The trial collapsed and the judge, the late Mr Justice Paul Carney, issued a warrant for the woman’s arrest. He ordered that no discretion be used when executing it. “If she has to spend a long time in prison herself waiting for a re-trial that’s her fault,” he commented. By the time gardaí tracked the woman down she had taken an overdose of pills along with half a bottle of vodka. They rushed her to hospital. She was later discharged and brought to court, under arrest, by gardaí. Mr Justice Carney ordered she be held in custody until she finished giving her evidence. She was taken to a holding cell, near the ones holding her three alleged attackers, where she remained until 2pm that day. A new jury was sworn in and the woman was released after a garda told the judge he was confident she would turn up for court when required. The three men were later acquitted.
Silentcorner wrote: » How do we arrive at a figure? I don't know how to answer that, another poster the truth comes out in 9 out of 10 cases, ask him/her where they got the figure. Why have courts? I'd imagine to enforce the law. Or even due process? For the same reason we have courts.
Silentcorner wrote: » Well, for a start she will be guided through what is a very impersonal experience, never underestimate how tough a courtroom appearance can be. In this case, if she had her own barrister, she would have more control over her narrative. For instance, she gave accounts to both the Rape Crisis Centre and the Police, and there were inaccuracies between them, which were explained but not in huge detail, her defence barrister should be afforded a separate opportunity to go through those inaccuracies, because, they are were attacked by the other barristers. Also, in the origional account of her version that she gave to police, there were a few things that corroborated her version of events. 1 She described freezing from the start of the incident, she describes what she did with Stuart Olding, she did this before she remembered that a witness had entered the room, Dara Florence, by the time she remembered Dara Florence, the two lads had given their statement denying having any sex at all with the young woman, Dara Florence ended up confirming the description of events that she gave. But it got lost in the whole, was it consensual sex argument. 2 The fact that she went to the police before she remembered Dara Florence obliterates the theory that she lied because she was afraid of her pictures getting onto social media. 3 She left the room on three occasions, the first time when she kissed Jackson, she had the presence of mind to bring her bag upstairs with her, but she left the room without it, which a good barrister could indicate that she left the room as quick as she could, whatever happened. 4 She returned to the party, she felt the mood had changed, she decided to leave, she was seen (in a picture) putting on her shoes, which would indicate that she was leaving, she could not have known that that picture existed, but it did. 5 The taxi driver describes vividly how upset she was, but again not much was made of it, taxi drivers are always dropping drunk/emotional people home, her own barrister could have spent more time ascertaining how upset she was in comparison to other passengers, again, this was fairly glossed over. Now, that is just based on what we are aware of, there are still, strangely enough, reporting restrictions on this case, so we have no idea what else the jury heard...but that the above are just some ways her own team could help her.
Silentcorner wrote: When it comes to rape, the truth DOES NOT come out in 9 out of 10 cases...far from it!
strandroad wrote: » Define "questioned" though. This apparently happened here in the South in 2012:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-trial-was-on-a-par-with-the-rape-but-i-m-glad-i-testified-1.3445573 This is the stuff the protests are also about; she was probably anonymous for all the good it did for her in the face of such questioning. Could the judge do it again today? And by the standards of this thread, the woman was also "a liar who should be locked up" since the men were all acquitted later.
Silentcorner wrote: » Ah will you go away....I've listed about a half dozen suggestions....on a number of occasions.
