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

tretorn wrote: »

It was unreal, they discussed the case as if a guilty verdict had been handed down.

You wouldnt mind but RTE had enough reporters at the trial in Belfast and they must have seen how weak the prosecution case was.
They would have heard the judges summing up so they should have known it was very likely none of the men would be found guilty.

I suppose though the media got Trumps election and Brexit wrong too.

They still havent recovered from Trumps victory and he hasnt made a total mess of the Presidency so far though none of the media give him credit for anything.

They will be blaming him for the verdict in the Belfast trial too before very long.

Why would anyone blame trump, for the belfast trial. What has trump got to do with this discussion.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I just looked up Blane McIlroy to see what he did. He was a rugby player aswell apparantly.

People on here saying "women are flocking around the VIP area, desperate to be with them".

Reality: Blane McIlroy asking Dara Florence to stay the night because he "would give her the night of her life".

She said No.

Responsible girl alright.

Sad however that a defence solicitor is receiving death threats and Dara Florence is receiving vile abuse.

Some nice people out there looking for reform and consent classes.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I have re-read my comment and must admit that I cannot see how those parts are contradictory. The first part talks about rape / sexual assault and the second part talks about instances where rape / sex assault does not occur even when a woman does not consent to a particular sex act and honestly believes that she has been victim of rape / sexual assault.

The difference between both scenarios is that a criminal act requires both the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind) i.e. the criminal act and the intent to commit that criminal act, or being reckless in the commission of that act. The complainant may honestly perceive that she has been victim of an actus reus, but it may well be the case that the mens rea is absent – and therefore it is not a rape even if the complainant perceives it to be. In such instances, neither the complainant is lying nor is the defendant guilty.

Happy to clarify this in alternative wording if this isn't clear!

Are you saying that the man must know it is rape and have a "guilty mind" for the crime of rape to take place.
I also agree with most of you previous post but that makes no sense. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying though

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was quite clear from how she was sitting on the sofa that she wasn't into Blane. I think she was after Paddy meself and that would explain why she went mooching maybe and pehaps also why she took her time closing the door after discovering the menage a trois.


Indeed, and she's also rather nobly turned down substantial offers to sell her story.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

Looks like one of those 'posey' pics-like she was more about 'take a pic of my best side' kinda thing.

She may very well have been interested in none of those guys-PJ's a ginger and an unlikeable guy from some accounts, and Blaine doesn't seem that bright. (Yep, I'm being judgemental).
I mean, was it established if she had a boyfriend? She turned down the guys, so she may have morals.

Went home with her friend that night too.

joe40 wrote: »

Are you saying that the man must know it is rape and have a "guilty mind" for the crime of rape to take place.
I also agree with most of you previous post but that makes no sense. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying though

Exactly. Rape under the law requires two elements, which can be lightly summarised as such : (1) that the complainant did not consent and (2) that the defendant neither had an honest belief nor reasonable grounds for belief that the complainant had consented.

So to put it in a practical example: Let us say a man is having sex with a woman and either the initiation of the sex or an act which takes place during that sex is not consented to by the female. At this point, the first branch of rape is extant. The second branch, in order for this to be a rape, requires that the man does not honestly believe, or does not have reasonable grounds for believing, that the woman has consented to this act.

This is an important distinction because, as can be seen from the above, it is legally plausible that a woman does not consent to sex or an act during sex and may honestly believe that she is being raped -- but it is still not rape because the man honestly believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that she has consented. Such scenarios are demonstrative that, even if a man has not committed rape (i.e. because he honestly believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that the woman consented), this does not entail that a woman is lying about not having consented. This is an extremely important point in protecting women who make honest complaints about having been subjected to a non-consensual sex act from being branded liars purely because a man had reasonable grounds for believing that she consented.

I appreciate that this can be a little difficult to grasp at first but this is, generally speaking, the position of Irish law on the matter of rape. Again, happy to explain this further with some hypothetical examples if that is helpful.

Rosanna Cooney gave a really strong summation of the events and the court case. (She's one shining light in a world of crap on Joe.ie)

https://www.joe.ie/news/legends-inside-story-belfast-rape-trial-620896

You know, the reports of the two doctors in this case have been available in the general media since the day the case ended (and earlier i think).There was a real clash here...so much so that at one point the only solution was to bring in a dvd showing the internal examination.Professional pride was put aside to save blushes in the courtroom.

Those (#ibeliveher ,#suemepaddy) heroes of twitter,the nice folks who are standing up for justice and victims everywhere, seem to have no cognisance that their actions jeopardise the very space in which all folks can thrive and grow,and seek justice.

I saw a few days ago that Rose Mcgowan had a say on this case on twitter.

P.J. and S.o. are now linked to the #me2 campaign by the mud sticks brigade.

How do some folks, with an itchy twitter finger, think that is going to look ?When you, erm, actually go back and take time to read all the evidence of the Belfast case ?

Have you helped #me2 or poisoned it a little?

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I just looked up Blane McIlroy to see what he did. He was a rugby player aswell apparantly.

People on here saying "women are flocking around the VIP area, desperate to be with them".

Reality: Blane McIlroy asking Dara Florence to stay the night because he "would give her the night of her life".

She said No.

So Dara Florence said 'No'.
Her non consent was respected.
Was''t brought upstairs and gang raped.
Wasn't left in hysterics.
Wasn't left lacerated and bleeding.

I can see why the alleged defendents were found 'Not Guilty'.

Fann Linn wrote: »

So Dara Florence said 'No'.
Her non consent was respected.
Was''t brought upstairs and gang raped.
Wasn't left in hysterics.
Wasn't left lacerated and bleeding.

I can see why the alleged defendents were found 'Not Guilty'.

Yes. And the court found that the same statements were true of the "victim", as the 4 men were found not guilty

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Exactly. Rape under the law requires two elements, which can be lightly summarised as such : (1) that the complainant did not consent and (2) that the defendant neither had an honest belief nor reasonable grounds for belief that the complainant had consented.

So to put it in a practical example: Let us say a man is having sex with a woman and either the initiation of the sex or an act which takes place during that sex is not consented to by the female. At this point, the first branch of rape is extant. The second branch, in order for this to be a rape, requires that the man does not honestly believe, or does not have reasonable grounds for believing, that the woman has consented to this act.

This is an important distinction because, as can be seen from the above, it is legally plausible that a woman does not consent to sex or an act during sex and may honestly believe that she is being raped -- but it is still not rape because the man honestly believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that she has consented. Such scenarios are demonstrative that, even if a man has not committed rape (i.e. because he honestly believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that the woman consented), this does not entail that a woman is lying about not having consented. This is an extremely important point in protecting women who make honest complaints about having been subjected to a non-consensual sex act from being branded liars purely because a man had reasonable grounds for believing that she consented.

I appreciate that this can be a little difficult to grasp at first but this is, generally speaking, the position of Irish law on the matter of rape. Again, happy to explain this further with some hypothetical examples if that is helpful.

Thanks for clarifying, and apologies if I misinterpreted your original post.

That was my understanding of this whole sorry saga - that there was no false accuser, but there were no rapists either, just a mess, fuelled by excessive alcohol consumption on both sides.

How the prosecution services thought they had a case that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt is baffling.

The aftermath, with the defendants being branded rapists (even, in some quarters, those who weren't accused of rape in the first instance!), and people marching with placards proclaiming 'all men r scum' is extremely worrying.

The democratic process now seems to have been replaced with trial by social media and mob rule.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Exactly. Rape under the law requires two elements, which can be lightly summarised as such : (1) that the complainant did not consent and (2) that the defendant neither had an honest belief nor reasonable grounds for belief that the complainant had consented.

So to put it in a practical example: Let us say a man is having sex with a woman and either the initiation of the sex or an act which takes place during that sex is not consented to by the female. At this point, the first branch of rape is extant. The second branch, in order for this to be a rape, requires that the man does not honestly believe, or does not have reasonable grounds for believing, that the woman has consented to this act.

This is an important distinction because, as can be seen from the above, it is legally plausible that a woman does not consent to sex or an act during sex and may honestly believe that she is being raped -- but it is still not rape because the man honestly believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that she has consented. Such scenarios are demonstrative that, even if a man has not committed rape (i.e. because he honestly believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that the woman consented), this does not entail that a woman is lying about not having consented. This is an extremely important point in protecting women who make honest complaints about having been subjected to a non-consensual sex act from being branded liars purely because a man had reasonable grounds for believing that she consented.

I appreciate that this can be a little difficult to grasp at first but this is, generally speaking, the position of Irish law on the matter of rape. Again, happy to explain this further with some hypothetical examples if that is helpful.

This not in relation to the belfast trial.

I'm no lawyer but surely there are cases where a woman is not fit to give consent, at that time eg passed out due to intoxication, but a man believes he has permission so proceeds to have sex. In his mind it is consensual but it is still a rape.
It is different if consent on the womans part is withdrawn during the act but this is not communicated until afterwards, or genuine misunderstanding occurs.
Also in terms of a girl that is underage there may be willing consent but the man is still in trouble.
I always thought ignorance of the law is not a defence