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

tritium · 05-04-2018 09:55AM

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It is different if consent on the womans part is withdrawn during the act but this is not communicated until afterwards, or genuine misunderstanding occurs.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

The belief must be reasonable as I understand it.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 10:06AM

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.

The irony here is the #ibelieverher and the social media circus is going to have a negative effect on bringing rape cases to trial.
Already I see in the news today that a probe is being launched to why this was ever taken on by the DPP in the first place.

So the back lash here is not going to help victims in the future, it will simply set a president where the DPP will only take cases they know they can win, they definitely will not want to go through this again!

KrustyUCC · 05-04-2018 10:07AM

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

Excellent read

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 10:18AM

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.

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!

mfceiling · 05-04-2018 10:26AM

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510.amp

joe40 · 05-04-2018 10:29AM

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!

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

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 10:36AM

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

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?

Synode · 05-04-2018 10:36AM

mfceiling wrote: »

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510.amp

That's shocking. Why the hell would the PPS take a case when the PSNI recommended no charge. Completely ruined the 4 lads lives

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 10:39AM

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

Does more than that, it damages the system....
DPP have been embarrassed in this case and there by the looks of it will be ramifications.

Is this going to help victims of rape going forward? I do not think so!

joe40 · 05-04-2018 10:41AM

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?

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)

wexie · 05-04-2018 10:44AM

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

Yes I took that to be one of the most relevant sentences in the whole article :

“They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge.

Does anybody know how these things are decided within the CPS? Could this have been a case of someone's pet project or trying to climb the career ladder?

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 11:02AM

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)

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 · 05-04-2018 11:11AM

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.

Thanks for that.

So having sex with someone sleeping for example would be grounds for "reckless with consent"

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 11:15AM

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

So having sex with someone sleeping for example would be grounds for "reckless with consent"

I think if defendant went to court and said "she was sleeping" and I had sex with her, he is going to go to jail.

Unless there is some verbal agreement before hand saying she is OK with it.

GreeBo · 05-04-2018 11:19AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

the second half is having reasonable grounds for that belief.

Which, at least to me, implies that reasonable grounds can and will vary with society, with the makeup of the jury, with time, etc.
its not a defined or indeed a definable thing.

e.g. if your jury is made up of young people who often engage in promiscuous activities leading to sex then I would say "reasonable belief" is "easier" to believe than if your jury was made up of middle-aged, more prudish people.

Which is kinda scary tbh.

ford2600 · 05-04-2018 11:22AM

"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

GreeBo · 05-04-2018 11:32AM

ford2600 wrote: »

Why would the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecute if their own police force thought they couldn't get a successful prosecution?

To make an example I guess.
"No one is above the law" type of thing.

tretorn · 05-04-2018 11:37AM

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

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.

RuMan · 05-04-2018 11:38AM

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

Based on the lack of evidence and extrordinary quick decision by the jury i cant understand how it ever got to trial.

The innocent men but also the woman were badly let down by the decision to proceed.

If i was Jacko i'd look at a legal action for loss of earnings.

The twitter mob really need to look at themselves.

Ulysses Gaze · 05-04-2018 11:42AM

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

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.

wexie · 05-04-2018 11:53AM

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.

What's the odds that this extensive review will lead to otherwise solid cases being thrown out or revised simply because the prosecution cut some corners and not because they are actually innocent?

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?

upandcumming · 05-04-2018 12:24PM

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?

They don't care if 500 innocent people go down for every guilty person convicted.

jm08 · 05-04-2018 12:34PM

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.

I think maybe the reason why the police said that about the complainant is because they were worried that future victims of rape will not report them.

The problem with rape cases is that they are impossible to prove. I also see that the Northern Ireland Justice Dept have a raft of proposals to improve the system (more like the system down here), but with no Stormant they can't get the changes made.

Jimbob1977 · 05-04-2018 12:41PM

Was Minister Richard Bruton already planning to include 'consent classes' in Primary School?

Seemed to get publicised within days of the (not guilty) verdict.

jm08 · 05-04-2018 12:49PM

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.

Here is an article by Alison Saunders which is worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/23/sexual-consent-rape-prosecution-myth-consentis

I think the big problem the police services have in the UK are resource cuts. 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.

tretorn · 05-04-2018 12:54PM

Alison Saunders is not head of the CPS in the North Of Ireland, the North has its own CPS but the head of that is female too.
Jackson and Olding have employment rights so its not as if the twitter mob can dictate whether they return to work or not. If their contracts are terminated they can appeal to the bitter end and they can also put in claims for wrongful dismissal.
Everyone is entitled to their rights at the end of the day.
The police and the CPS have ruined Jackson and Oldings lives and they did this knowing there is no coming back from a charge of rape.
Some of the twiiter mob are so thick they dont even understand Harrison never set foot in the bedroom, its being stated that he got off on a rape charge too.
Surely there has to be compensation for the State putting you in this position.

Mountainsandh · 05-04-2018 12:55PM

The whole school thing are just soundbites. The current and even last RSE/SPHE/wellbeing courses have consent, social media, etc... Well covered and delivered. Delivery might not have been the greatest in the past, but younger generations of teachers have great tools and a good handle on it all. What is still not in control is the lack of communication at home and parents who fail to educate their children, because it's " difficult and uncomfortable". (As you can read in Facebook comments)

wexie · 05-04-2018 12:57PM

I'm just reading this :

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

Full reporting of Ulster rape trial 'could undermine the verdict'

Personally I feel that the whole 'undermining the verdict' horse seems to have bolted and gone at this stage.

But I was just curious (I'm sure I've missed it somewhere along the line) who the second person is to take civil proceedings?

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.

Carlos Orange · 05-04-2018 01:02PM

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.

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

jm08 · 05-04-2018 01:29PM

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

That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK.

It is noticeable that the right wing press (Telegraph, Daily Mail, and some very right wing bloggers) were after Ms Saunders blood.

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

Comments