joe40 wrote: » 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 It is different if consent on the womans part is withdrawn during the act but this is not communicated until afterwards, or genuine misunderstanding occurs.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
UsedToWait wrote: » 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.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » 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
joe40 wrote: » 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.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » The issue with this is difficult, if this is the state you are in, it becomes difficult to prove anything. Even becomes difficult to prove you where in this state. There was a case like this is Wales where a victim claimed she had no recollection of the sexual encounter at all. Does not remembering what happen mean you didn't consent? Last time me and the wife went out, I managed to come home make us both a cheese toastie..... Albeit I have no recollection of doing it.... But I still managed it without burning the house down!
joe40 wrote: » I agree I have plenty of nights where I have fairly intoxicated memory lapses etc but talking to people the next day the said I seemed fine holding conversations etc. Nearly all my sexual encounters in younger years were on nights out where girls would most likely have drink taken. Drunk consent is still consent! The problem is where a girl has passed out deeply sleeping then she cannot give consent. Surely in that situation it is not good enough that the man "thinks" he has permission
mfceiling wrote: » https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510.amp
Synode wrote: » That's shocking. Why the hell would the CPS take a case when the PSNI recommended no charge. Completely ruined the 4 lads lives
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » These are two separate arguments: You have a moral question to whether someones actions constitutes rape. I do not think anyone thinks having sex with someone that is passed out is consensual sex. But you then have a legal question to what you can clearly prove. She is drunk he is drunk they both give different accounts of what happened... What do you do?
“They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge.
joe40 wrote: » Yeah I accept that. My post was a question to a previous poster who appeared to say that if a man genuinely believed he had consent, then it was not rape. (I may be misinterpreting them so just trying to clarify)
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » The law states that: "at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it." So let's say this guy does genuinely believes she is consenting... Is he being reckless with that belief? "It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed."So in the event to goes to court it is up to the jury to determine if there was reasonable ground for his belief...... So believing he had consent is half way there, the second half is having reasonable grounds for that belief.
joe40 wrote: » Thanks for that. So having sex with someone sleeping for example would be grounds for "reckless with consent"
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » the second half is having reasonable grounds for that belief.
ford2600 wrote: » Why would the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecute if their own police force thought they couldn't get a successful prosecution?
ford2600 wrote: » "I would like to pay tribute to the young woman who had the resolve and confidence to come forward and put her faith in police and the criminal justice process. In addition to this, she was named on social media sites during the trial contrary to her legal entitlement. Any breach of this entitlement is and will be investigated." Pat Kenny had a legal expert (he is usual guy he has, he lecturers in law and works as a barrister) on last week and discussed this statement from Detective Chief Superintendent Paula Hilman, Head of Public Protection Branch. His view was that it was improper to commend any witness in this way. Their job is to present the evidence and leave it to the jury after that; such comments after the jury have given their verdict, can undermine them. The above in light of this(if correct, no idea who source is) "“They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses. “They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”" Why would the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecute if their own police force thought they couldn't get a successful prosecution? Is that unusual? Maybe the source is all nonsense, although once there was a sober witness in room I can see why they might have had major doubts. I have my own suspicions as to why, based on information that isn't public, but as I don't want to be sued I'll keep to myself
Synode wrote: » That's shocking. Why the hell would the PPS take a case when the PSNI recommended no charge. Completely ruined the 4 lads lives
ford2600 wrote: » "I would like to pay tribute to the young woman who had the resolve and confidence to come forward and put her faith in police and the criminal justice process. In addition to this, she was named on social media sites during the trial contrary to her legal entitlement. Any breach of this entitlement is and will be investigated." Pat Kenny had a legal expert (he is usual guy he has, he lecturers in law and works as a barrister) on last week and discussed this statement from Detective Chief Superintendent Paula Hilman, Head of Public Protection Branch. His view was that it was improper to commend any witness in this way. Their job is to present the evidence and leave it to the jury after that; such comments after the jury have given their verdict, can undermine them. The above in light of this(if correct, no idea who source is) "“They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses. “They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”"Why would the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecute if their own police force thought they couldn't get a successful prosecution? Is that unusual? Maybe the source is all nonsense, although once there was a sober witness in room I can see why they might have had major doubts. I have my own suspicions as to why, based on information that isn't public, but as I don't want to be sued I'll keep to myself
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » But the damage she has wrought through her policy has led to hundreds of cases of sexual assault, child rape and rape being under review.
wexie wrote: » You'd have to wonder if people in the 'twitter mobs' and #Ibelieveher 'movement' would have a think about this and wonder if perhaps the lowering of standards when it comes to prosecution and conviction may not be the best way to go about things?
tretorn wrote: » I have to say that statement annoyed me the minute I heard it and I cant imagine how the defendents and their parents feel about it either. Whats with all the palaver about the accused rights to her privacy, if privacy is of such utmost importance then surely men accused of rape should not be named or shamed until their statuus of innocence is removed. It seemed to be an all female job between the CPS and the police, the head of the cPS is awomanand the senior police officer in the case is a woman too, did their gender have to much to do with decisions made. Most of the journalists who wrote newspaper reports about the case were female too, the few men who commented were much more balanced, compare the primetime programme with Miriam O Callaghan to the TV3 programme, the TV£ programme was far less biased and you had two male legal professionals who were able to talk about the case without emotion. Emotion has no place in Law and neither has gender bias. The person who made it was basically saying the jury got it wrong but the woman should be really proud of bringing the case anyway.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » The current and soon to be former head of the CPS is Alison Saunders. Her own target was to ensure more convictions for rape and sexual assault. She put pressure on police across the UK to ensure this. This has led to a spate of cases where wrongful convictions have happened under her watch as head of the CPS. The police across the UK were under pressure to get more rapists convicted which means they have pursued cases with little evidence and have tampered and withheld evidence in some cases. Thankfully this ideologue will leave her position in October. But the damage she has wrought through her policy has led to hundreds of cases of sexual assault, child rape and rape being under review.
Full reporting of Ulster rape trial 'could undermine the verdict'
Outlining the objections to lifting reporting restrictions, Mr O'Donoghue said two men in the case were facing disciplinary proceedings and two men had taken civil proceedings.
jm08 wrote: » The fact that she is leaving probably has a lot more to do her coming up through the ranks in crown prosecutions rather than being a member of the old boy Queens Counsel club.
psinno wrote: » So nothing to do with cases like this one where the CPS falsified evidence.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12144963/Commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-Waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim.html
