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

Mrsmum wrote: »

It seems to me then that this 'reasonable belief' is the kernel of the matter. As no-one can dispute there seems to be huge amounts of 'misunderstandings' which is a trivial but catch all word for it, imo if we want to prevent a man being accused when he feels it wasn't rape and forever more mud sticking and a woman feeling it was rape to the point she puts herself through quite an ordeal, is it not time to move from reasonable belief to clear consent ??? Some people seem almost invested in leaving things as they are but as we can see here this means lives get ruined. I have boys and I would rather they understand that consent has to be clear as a bell rather than end up with an allegation against them. I kinda think if you are clinging to 'reasonable belief' as to whether she was also actively having sex you aren't exactly 100% sure she was. And to my mind that's not good enough because the consequences for both parties are horrific.

Just to note, you do realize consent has to work both ways. In this trial the first failure to obtain “clear consent” was when the complainant came on to an incredibly drunk paddy Jackson. There’s actually no way with the degree of alcohol he’d consumed that he could have given that in a valid way. As such she would have to be charged with sexual assault (or maybe you have a lesser crime of failure to obtain clear consent) Do you think it’s a better system where someone who currently believes they’re a rape victim is then added to the sexual offenders register?

As another poster pointed out, framing this case the way you have is incorrect. Alcohol and it’s effect on a wider ability to communicate were far bigger issues here. The fact that there are several different versions of what sexual activity actualluly even happened should illustrate that.

Tell me how wrote: »

But obviously, you weren't fully informed, nor was I, because we weren't in the court room.

The warnings don't really help if you're not in a position to turn off the radio such as in a shop or waiting room etc with children around.

I'm not a prude, but I felt it was (and is) unnecessary to go to that level of detail, in terms of the dignity of all involved until a trial has concluded.

What difference does it make to dignity if the detail is covered during or after the trial ?

givyjoe wrote:

What difference does it make to dignity if the detail is covered during or after the trial ?

A - if a person was not convicted the decision could be made not to broadcast to that detail.

B - it wouldn't have been every News bulletin every day for 9 weeks.

I'm not arguing with the level of detailing becoming known in some manner (when appropriate) not as was done though. In my view.

tritium wrote: »

Just to note, you do realize consent has to work both ways. In this trial the first failure to obtain “clear consent” was when the complainant came on to an incredibly drunk paddy Jackson. There’s actually no way with the degree of alcohol he’d consumed that he could have given that in a valid way. As such she would have to be charged with sexual assault (or maybe you have a lesser crime of failure to obtain clear consent) Do you think it’s a better system where someone who currently believes they’re a rape victim is then added to the sexual offenders register?

As another poster pointed out, framing this case the way you have is incorrect. Alcohol and it’s effect on a wider ability to communicate were far bigger issues here. The fact that there are several different versions of what sexual activity actualluly even happened should illustrate that.

This isn't about scoring points as I am speaking in general terms. Of course it goes both ways but you and the dogs in the street know that it is nearly always men who end up in the dock so to speak. And I would think that always ruins their lives (not just if they are famous as everyone is famous in their own circle)because mud just sticks so lets say we only care about men, surely it is in their best interests for society to to encourage clear consent. Women are always advised to look after their safety in all sorts of ways but I think men/boys need to be advised that they are in just as risky a situation if they are relying on such a low bar as reasonable belief. Reasonable seems to me to be in the eye of the beholder. If the guards came to my door I would want my son to know not just believe he wasn't the only one enjoying himself. Again this is all in reply to a previous poster saying the defendant just needs to prove reasonable belief. At the end of the day reasonable belief might be easy to prove in court but by then the damage is already done to his reputation and he will probably be a rapist in the eyes of many forever more.

Mrsmum wrote: »

This isn't about scoring points as I am speaking in general terms. Of course it goes both ways but you and the dogs in the street know that it is nearly always men who end up in the dock so to speak. And I would think that always ruins their lives (not just if they are famous as everyone is famous in their own circle)because mud just sticks so lets say we only care about men, surely it is in their best interests for society to to encourage clear consent. Women are always advised to look after their safety in all sorts of ways but I think men/boys need to be advised that they are in just as risky a situation if they are relying on such a low bar as reasonable belief. Reasonable seems to me to be in the eye of the beholder. If the guards came to my door I would want my son to know not just believe he wasn't the only one enjoying himself. Again this is all in reply to a previous poster saying the defendant just needs to prove reasonable belief. At the end of the day reasonable belief might be easy to prove in court but by then the damage is already done to his reputation and he will probably be a rapist in the eyes of many forever more.

How do you propose proving 'clear consent' by the way, if there is a dispute.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you propose proving 'clear consent' by the way, if there is a dispute.

Well for starters I would change the definition of rape to imput the words 'clear consent' as a way of changing mindsets.
Also I really think there needs to be a whole discussion around sex. Especially for young people they need to understand sex is not anymore something you do to a woman rather something you do with. It is not something he gets and she gives. It is not meant to be an act where his cumming is the whole narrative. For many centuries our mother and grandmothers lay back and thought of England (or more likely tomorrow's dinner) and now that women are allowed to acknowledge our sexuality, rather than men learning about what we really like, there is this awful pressure to be porn stars which is again all about his pleasure. From one extreme to the other and neither are who we are. I think maybe (wishful thinking) that if men had any tiny understanding of sex from a woman's pov there might be less 'misunderstandings'.

Mrsmum wrote: »

It seems to me then that this 'reasonable belief' is the kernel of the matter. As no-one can dispute there seems to be huge amounts of 'misunderstandings' which is a trivial but catch all word for it, imo if we want to prevent a man being accused when he feels it wasn't rape and forever more mud sticking and a woman feeling it was rape to the point she puts herself through quite an ordeal, is it not time to move from reasonable belief to clear consent ??? Some people seem almost invested in leaving things as they are but as we can see here this means lives get ruined. I have boys and I would rather they understand that consent has to be clear as a bell rather than end up with an allegation against them. I kinda think if you are clinging to 'reasonable belief' as to whether she was also actively having sex you aren't exactly 100% sure she was. And to my mind that's not good enough because the consequences for both parties are horrific.

I acknowledge the sincerity of this post but the concept of 'clear consent' would not just be difficult to implement in practice (as it would require statutory footing and then subsequent refining through judicial interpretation in case law -- to the point where the fundamentally human act of sex would be rendered a mechanic process) but also that 'clear consent' would arguably be even more open to abuse than the current legal understanding.

The 'reasonable belief' standard allows for contextual inference -- take for example an instance where a woman says 'yes' to sex, thus there is apparent verbal consent, but all the other circumstances of the case point to this verbal consent being induced via threats, physical force or some other form of duress or undue influence. In that instance, no reasonable person would presume that the 'yes' is therefore indicative of consent rather than simply submission to the attack.

A 'clear consent' approach would require a stricter and more explicit format for consent, which arguably could then mean that a man acting on an intention to commit rape may seek to show that the sexual act conformed to this format. If he can show that, then it would be very difficult for a woman to prove an absence of consent, even if there are other circumstances which would lead to a reasonable belief that consent was absent.

Then you look at the interests of the accused; does 'clear consent' (which surely would have to take the form of a clear verbal consent) leave every man open to a floodgate of rape accusations? To put it in context, let's a say a man and woman are having consensual sex in the missionary position and the man moves to change positions to something more creative. On a reasonable belief basis, the man can probably be said to have reasonable belief that the woman has consented to having sex in various standard positions, and indeed in my own somewhat boring sex life I haven't encountered any girl who wanted me to get the green light from her for every change of position. If you were to apply a 'clear consent' approach to this -- I would need to acquire clear consent for every positional change or I am, in fact, committing rape if at some point we engage in a position where the girl is not consenting but freezes up or otherwise provides no indication that she does not consent to it. However, a 'reasonable belief' approach allows the full circumstances to be taken into consideration, which allows for a more context-sensitive understanding of consent, which in my opinion offers a much more suitable basis for a fair trial than a strict interpretation of 'clear consent'.

Mrsmum wrote: »

This isn't about scoring points as I am speaking in general terms. Of course it goes both ways but you and the dogs in the street know that it is nearly always men who end up in the dock so to speak. And I would think that always ruins their lives (not just if they are famous as everyone is famous in their own circle)because mud just sticks so lets say we only care about men, surely it is in their best interests for society to to encourage clear consent. Women are always advised to look after their safety in all sorts of ways but I think men/boys need to be advised that they are in just as risky a situation if they are relying on such a low bar as reasonable belief. Reasonable seems to me to be in the eye of the beholder. If the guards came to my door I would want my son to know not just believe he wasn't the only one enjoying himself. Again this is all in reply to a previous poster saying the defendant just needs to prove reasonable belief. At the end of the day reasonable belief might be easy to prove in court but by then the damage is already done to his reputation and he will probably be a rapist in the eyes of many forever more.

Men and boys are already told to be careful. Oddly no-one argues that’s victim blaming just that it’s common sense.

Reasonable belief isn’t in any way a low bar. The concept as another poster (Arthurdayne?) detailed earlier is fundamental to nearly all criminal law in this country, mens rea and actus rea- that someone has to commit a criminal act and knew or should reasonably have known it was a criminal act. It’s the same level required for pretty much all crimes, with very few exceptions.

I actually agree on clear consent being a good idea btw, but I think that it’s often pushed more as a way to lower the burden of proof by the back door than to protect anyone- essentially force the defendant to prove they're innocent to excuse the failure to collect sufficient evidence to show guilt. It’s also substantially complicated in cases such as this by the presence of alcohol. And there is the question of evidencing it- if the consent is verbal we still have a he said/ she said, we’ve just shifted the burden of proof.

I also think we too readily default to the position that only men need to seek consent. In this case the complainant frankly had no business going near Jackson in the condition he was in.

Can you detail how in this case you would set the chain of blame based on the clear consent question?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Willie john McBride, president of Ulster Rugby Supporters on Sean O'Rourke this morning to explain why Jackson and Olding should be allowed to resume their careers.

His interview was a disaster and he actually set the men's cause back even further.

upandcumming wrote: »

Being a complete scumbag? I have yet to see evidence of that. Can you point it out to me?

That's the thing, some people think that it's completely normal behaviour, others think it's scummy. That's why it's such a divisive case. Peoples minds are made up and absolutely nothing I post will change yours.

I feel sorry for the mods, almost 10k posts on this topic and I doubt 1 post changed anyone's opinion making it a massive waste of time for everyone here :pac:

Mrsmum wrote: »

His interview was a disaster and he actually set the men's cause back even further.

A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe.
To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity.

Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reason the idea of 'clear consent' or 'written consent' is highly problematic is that it makes it really hard for one of the participants to subsequently change their mind.

If you consent to sex in writing and then change your mind, what court is going to believe you with a signed document saying otherwise?

By all accounts, we need to change how we prosecute sex crime by adopting new definitions and categories, but you can't also force a complete change in human nature.

Oh come on, do you really think it means you need signature for everything. Most normal people are able to negotiate sex without any confusion. However it might mean that someone who is too drunk to talk isn't exactly consenting because they can't mumble no.