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

You are all asking how there can be more convictions, Earlier a lady said she was raped by a taxidriver but wouldn't take it further because of the adversarial court system. She is far from the only one that thinks that so we all can be fairly sure that many rape victims don't bother coming forward at all. Does anyone think that isn't so ? Genuine rape victims staying silent and rapists out there free as the birds continuing on their path of destruction feeling untouchable. I even heard Fiona Looney say she would actively discourage in the strongest terms her daughter if she was raped from going to court. So it seems to me anything that aids those victims would bring forward more cases and by the law of averages some extra rapists would be caught like perhaps the taxidriver above. No ?

emeraldwinter wrote: »

It's hard to tell. With the rise of the Internet and social media and the amount of social capital you can get by saying #metoo or alike. If you believe the rape crisis statistics then there is huge numbers not reporting to the Garda. Should the centre not be strongly but unsupportive helping actual victim go to the Garda.

Many rape victims who have won their cases say the court case was as traumatic as the rape nearly. People shouldn't be cannonfodder like that imo.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Many rape victims who have won their cases say the court case was as traumatic as the rape nearly. People shouldn't be cannonfodder like that imo.

Agreed : I'm all for due procedure being followed and safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions but a sexual assault trial becoming an ordeal and trauma for the complainant seems wrong.

It's also sending out the message to many sexual assault victims that even reporting it is a waste of time, as the court case might end up being nearly as bad an experience as the assault.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Who are you to dictate what nonsense illogical posts are? What gives you that right?

Everyone has the right to dictate what nonsense illogical posts are, and you're free to do the same.

Everybody involved in the assistance of rape victims is lobbying for legal assistance for victims in rape trials...

They're not. I'm not lobbying for it for example because I understand that in a criminal case, it is the State which is bringing a case against the accused, not the alleged victim. The accused is entitled to legal representation to defend themselves, witnesses for the State are not, because it is not the alleged victim taking a case against the accused. The only circumstances where a witness for the State is entitled to legal representation is when their previous sexual history is judged to be relevant to the case.

The question you need to ask yourself is, what problem do you have locking up rapists?

That's not a question anyone should have to ask themselves.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I as a man, have no idea why people are so threatened by it!!!

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you've never been accused of committing rape? The question you need to ask yourself, is whether you would feel the same way if you were accused of committing rape?

The fact that you're a man is neither here nor there tbh, or did you mean to imply that you are representative of anyone but yourself?

It's not that I'm threatened by the alleged victim having legal representation at all, there is precedent for it in child welfare cases where their interests are represented by a Guardian ad Litem, but in the case of criminal trials, because the alleged victim isn't the person on trial, they don't need legal representation, as they have no case to answer for. It is entirely the responsibility of the State to present the prosecutions case against the accused, and the alleged victim appears as a witness in the States case against the accused.

It really is a case that has divided a nation.

With regards to the person who said that they were raped by a taxi driver, I am so sorry to hear that and I hope you’re ok. A poster immediately after posted that you may be making it up. Do people really think that anyone has anything to gain from making these accusations up? Yes, I know that there have been cases we’ve all read about in the media, but as a percentage of rapes how many do people really think were falsified? There is no money or glory for rape victims.

I can’t be certain as I wasn’t there, but my understanding is that the #IBelieveHer march wasn’t to try to get the verdict overturned but to show others that they will be believed and taken seriously.

From the information available to us it seems that there were many times in the process where the young lady in question was let down, not least of which was not being allowed her own legal representation in court. As a witness she was not entitled to representation and therefore had nobody looking after her best interests or welfare. She sat giving evidence for eight full days going over the same things again and again with nobody to object to the repetitive or accusing questioning. Even if I was certain of something being questioned for 6/7 hours a day for 8 days would make me inconsistent and unsure.

There is no question that the four accused have also been through an ordeal but just because there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction doesn’t necessarily mean that they are completely innocent. I’m female and I am a mother of boys, I hope (and will be explaining to them) that if ever a girl leaves their company in tears or bleeding then she is not ok and should not just be “thrown home” despite the fact that they may consider themselves “top shaggers”.

We won’t solve this issue in this thread, and although I disagree with some viewpoints I’m not looking to argue or prove you wrong.

We need to educate our children more not to get so drunk that they don’t know what they’re doing. Does someone really need 23 pints to have a good night?
For boys it’s more and more important to make sure that if you’re going to have sex with a girl that she’s not drunk and that she has said that it’s something she wants, whether we like it or not there are some members of the fairer sex who will lie, but that doesn’t make us all liars.

When I was 21 years old someone tried to rape me. It was someone I knew but luckily someone heard me, came to help me, and it didn’t happen. However despite having a witness, and obvious bruising, I wasn’t believed because I’d had one half pint of cider. One glass apparently made me “gagging for it”. I’ve never touched alcohol again, because apparently only men tell the truth after they’ve had a drink!
Much as we may dislike it there are some stigmas around the whole issue that need to be removed!

I wonder if boards did a poll on the following, and people answered honestly, what the outcome would be:
(1) were you ever raped and not reported it
(2) were you ever accused wrongly of having raped
(3) have you ever raped someone who didn’t report it
(4) did you ever lie about being raped

erica74 wrote: »

What do you mean by the last sentence? The amount of people attending every day?

And the heckling, and the jeering, and the guffaws and so on. I don't care if she was accusing someone of rape-or of stealing her car. She didn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Seriously? She sounds so shady.
I have said already that I agree with the verdict, there wasn't enough evidence to convict. However, the inconsistencies between Dara's evidence and the "accepted" version of the events of the night in question (along with some of the anecdotal stories I've read about Dara) makes it difficult to have full faith in her.

She sounds like a narcissist tbh-you can find her social media pages...aspiring socialite from what I can see.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered already today - so many posts since I last checked in and I can't go through them all.

Two things that disturb me from Justine McCarthy's article in the Sunday Times today (pg 7)

"Olding's counsel Frank O'Donoghue said, there were "middle-class girls downstairs who would not tolerate rape"

And

"The judge advised (the jurors) to take the men's good character into consideration, and to remember that people of good character were less likely to commit a crime or lie in court"

Well, if that's what was said and those sentences haven't been ripped out of context, then F me

The comment about 'tolerating rape' was just ridiculous. Doubt anyone would 'tolerate' rape.

The 'good character' thing is a legal term-'good character' means one has never been to prison, or has no convictions, previously. (I think fines would still fall under good character, barring serious offences-speeding tickets, points on your license could' still be good character).
That's been bandied about so often-but by people who don't seem to the differences in terminology.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I answered it before-but heckling her and mocking her while in the defendants box-I don't care if she was accusing the lads of rape or of stealing her car...
You don't treat anyone like that. I'd wonder if the 4 guys got similar treatment?

Thats a matter for the cops in the court to sort out.
No reform needed.
No legislative changes.
Simples.

brooke 2 wrote: »

I once knew a solicitor whose daughter was raped when she got off the Night Link. The rapist was out on bail, having already raped someone else! She did not want her daughter to take him to court which really surprised me. She believed the DPP would give the most high profile cases to the best barristers and someone like her daughter might only get a junior.

There is so much focus on how to bring more successful cases, and I don't claim to have all the answers, but one thing I'm sure of is that sentencing in these cases needs to be seriously overhauled. Rape carries a maximum life sentence yet there is no minimum sentence, which is in itself bizarre; I acknowledge there has to be judicial discretion, but not to the extent that you can pick any timescale from 0 to life. Moreover, Niamh Ní Dhomhnaill was on the Ray D'Arcy show on Saturday, reminding us of her case in which her rapist ex-boyfriend was convicted and then let walk free with no prison sentence. It makes you wonder, what's the point?

Silentcorner wrote: »

What part of this do you not understand, victims of rape have no belief in the court system, we convict at a rate of approx 8% of reported rapes, that isn't even 1 in 10...not including all the women who have suffered in silence.

The sad part of this case is that the young lady knew she had no chance, she said it to her friend before she went to the police.

This is worth leaving here, if just ton dispel the 8% nonsense being peddled or the idea that rape is so out of kilter with other crimes. Report is from the UK however it shouldn’t be radically different here

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

I see the minister of Education is trumpeting an inititive on consent at the Teacher Congresses this week.
The case must be gold dust for him to take the heat off the pay issue facing him.

More so if you realise the 'consent education' recomendations came a long time ago from the Citizen's Assembly.

Maybe a few of the bandwagoners need to do some serious leg work on these issues.

Wheety wrote: »

You'd think with all of the new technology which provides young people with numerous methods of meeting/contacting people and sending explicit images that it would have been updated before now.

Bishops.

The Catholics control 90% of the schools in the country. Even if you don't see it, they're still calling the shots with the curriculum as much as they can and will resist any sex education that might be "dangerously liberal".

tritium wrote: »

This is worth leaving here, if just ton dispel the 8% nonsense being peddled or the idea that rape is so out of kilter with other crimes. Report is from the UK however it shouldn’t be radically different here

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

Surely the first question is that attrition rates should be calculated for other crimes as well?

I mean once you are in court someone obviously thinks that they have enough evidence and thus you are getting a biased sample (for any crime).

Of course then you have the issue that even if you believe a crime was committed you may not simply not know who to convict which is (frequently) not the case for a rape case where the victim likely knows the attacker and knows if they are guilty (unlike say a robbery trial where you have no what the person who broke in while you were away looks like).

Having said that they should be clearer what they mean when they report the 8% stat or whatever it is.

Wheety wrote: »

Said on the radio that it is the first time in 20 years they are updating the sex education curriculum.

You'd think with all of the new technology which provides young people with numerous methods of meeting/contacting people and sending explicit images that it would have been updated before now.

It should be looked at every 2-3 years.

That's because of the involvement of the catholic church in our schools.

Most people can agree that sex is an enjoyable act and it feels good, as long as it's all consenting adults and willing participants then everyone should be able to enjoy it in whatever form they want.
Sex and relationships need to be explained to children and young adults in different age appropriate ways, the more informed they are, the less inclined they are to view it as a secretive act and the more likely they are to actually understand what it's all about. And there is an age at which sex education should begin and that's not 18 or 16, in my opinion, it should be 12 or so. However, there is a certain amount of information that should also be imparted to under 12s. It is a part of the curriculum that needs to be specifically designed for every age
As long as the catholic church are involved in our schools, this isn't possible.

Sex education when I was in school (I did my leaving cert in 2006) was all sex was out of bounds until you got married and then you only had sex to have children. There was no information about the act itself, contraception, relationships, love, consent, putting pressure on anyone etc etc etc. There was no proper sex education.