Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one
Options
Comments
-
Your 1 in 100 figure is based on claims of rape by individuals. A dramatic number of these go nowhere near the level of evidence to proceed to trial on the basis of the legal definition of rape. It’s simply not accurate to refer to all these as rapes that somehow slip through a broken system. We’ve seen what happens in the UK when the system changes to prosecute more of these cases based on believing the compalinant- we don’t get more convictions because the evidence is still not there. It makes good headlines to say the conviction rate is low but when it’s artificially suppressed it does a huge amount of damage.
As has been shown earlier the actual rate of conviction for rape is higher than is often claimed (for example the 17% figure in the Irish examiner is seen to be a very misleadingly low number).
In addition you’re strawmanning the actual point here. What’s being proposed will by definition increase the false conviction rate and place the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence. Why is it more acceptable to falsely convict than to falsely acquit?
Here will you stop talking sense ffs! There IS a rape culture ok! Any denial of rape culture means you support rape culture!0 -
For the very last time, I found him not to be reasonable at all. Therefore unless you agree with me, fact is what's reasonable is subjective. Keep going all you like after this but I suspect you and I will never agree on what is 'reasonable' which proves my point.
Ok, direct question.
Can you prove that the majority (most) of 'reasonable' people disagree with him?
Correct. You can't.0 -
Prosecution would still need to prove active consent wasn't given, how does that place burden on the accused to prove their innocence?g
In addition you’re strawmanning the actual point here. What’s being proposed will by definition increase the false conviction rate and place the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence. Why is it more acceptable to falsely convict than to falsely acquit?
I'm not going to argue about rape stats because there are also huge differences in conviction rates when charges are fought in the court or when cases when accused accepts the charges are included. But it's safe to say sexual assault and rape charges are under reported, historical cases prove that when people reported abuse only when someone else already reported the abuse.0 -
Prosecution would still need to prove active consent wasn't given, how does that place burden on the accused to prove their innocence?
I'm not going to argue about rape stats because there are also huge differences in conviction rates when charges are fought in the court or when cases when accused accepts the charges are included. But it's safe to say sexual assault and rape charges are under reported, historical cases prove that when people reported abuse only when someone else already reported the abuse.
Are we actually reading the same thread here?To be more specific I think the defendant would have to prove how and to what extent the alleged victim participated so not ever that s(he) didn't say no but that s(he) did say yes and how that yes was made known to defendant. And not by interest shown hours earlier but at the moment of dispute.
On the rape stats, I hate to point it out but you were the one who posited the 1 in 100 figure not me. I absolutely agree that how you splice the data matters, however that point is remarkably inconsistent with the number you provided.0 -
Not at all. I think we should strengthen the idea of consent and there is a lot to be done obviously.
The conversation about how all this would work in court still needs to take place.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
Nobody seems able to answer this too well. I've seen people talking about signing contracts etc but then that almost removes the ability to withdraw consent. Or at least makes it almost impossible to prove that consent was withdrawn.
Morally it certainly does matter if a person asks for consent or not. To do these things without consent is a terrible act. So I would consider it to be rape if a person did those things without asking.
Legally though? How do we prove that there was consent? How do we prove that their wasn't?
Would consent classes focus on the legal aspect?
A shopkeeper might accuse someone of stealing from them but they might have CCTV footage or eyewitness accounts.
Even a very brief browse shows that in successful shoplifting prosecutions there is often CCTV footage or a security guard stopped the thief when they tried to leave the store.
In other words there is actual evidence that the crime took place.
A brief browse shows there are false allegations of shoplifting too and usually those will be stopped dead when the accused produces their receipt showing that they paid for goods or they will ask the store to check CCTV. Usually these won't even go to court.
The main question about consent here from a legal perspective is how would you prove that consent was given? How would you prove that consent was not given?
If consent is going to be central to these cases but we are struggling to prove that consent was not given then how can we hope to get more prosecutions?
The way I see it, you are good at arguing on semantics and you are exceptionally skilled and being pedantic BUT you are offering nothing of substance and you don't have any solutions at all.
"Are you trying to say that since it's hard to determine consent we should just ditch the idea of consent completely?"
No.
It's the same discussion that they have now. You seem worried that someone might lie in court. That's no difference to now.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's the same discussion that they have now. You seem worried that someone might lie in court. That's no difference to now.
I'm not worried that someone might lie in court. I assume people do that all the time.
I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
We've got eyewitness reports. As we saw in this case the eyewitness testimony was a major factor in the "not guilty" verdict.
People are mad about that though. What other evidence would we be looking at then to prove or disprove consent?0 -
I'm not worried that someone might lie in court. I assume people do that all the time.
I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
We've got eyewitness reports. As we saw in this case the eyewitness testimony was a major factor in the "not guilty" verdict.
People are mad about that though. What other evidence would we be looking at then to prove or disprove consent?
I think the idea about having more discussions about consent - how to be clear about what you are and are not consenting to and how to be sure your partner is consenting - is to have less instances where it ends up with one person feeling like they had been raped/assaulted/violated. It will not solve the issue of proving the consent was given but it may make more young people feel more empowered to be clear about their own consent with partners when engaging in casual sex.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »For sure. But there are two parts to her evidence that are critical. Not just that she didn't think she'd seen a rape - but the actions of Jackson, Olding and the complainant when she walked in.
The complainant turned her face away. Jackson beckoned her to join in and Olding was relaxed back with his arms no where near the complainants head.
Regardless of whether she thought there was a rape, her evidence also confirmed that Jackson and Olding also didn't think there was a rape and that is important evidence. They would have had no idea whether the complainant would freeze or seek help from another female coming in and Dara was a stranger to everyone there.
That still doesn't mean there wasn't a rape, but it does suggest that neither defendant believed there was which is contrary to the evidence put forward by the complainant. By her evidence there could have been no doubt. It's an issue at the centre of the trial that is hard to reconcile.
Ages back in this thread someone said that they didn't believe the defendants deliberately tried to hurt the girl. I agreed. I personally think that the guys didn't care how the woman felt and that they just assumed that they had consent even though they didn't.
Personally I think that's rape. That's penetration without consent. But as has been pointed out by others, that not enough. For the defendants to be guilty of rape they had to be fully aware that they didn't have consent.
It's possible for the woman to have been raped and for the guys not to realise what they were doing. That doesn't mean they're not rapist it just means that they didn't care enough to find out.0 -
I'm not going to argue about stats but do you actually think that women who don't report rape couldn't be raped?Are we actually reading the same thread here?
On the rape stats, I hate to point it out but you were the one who posited the 1 in 100 figure not me. I absolutely agree that how you splice the data matters, however that point is remarkably inconsistent with the number you provided.
I don't care what we are reading, the basis of legal system here is that prosecution has to prove guilt. Active consent just removes possibility of saying I didn't realize she didn't want it and use that as defense when someone is drunk or has some intellectual disabilities or is in some other way not in a position to say no. (some is already in law). But the actual legal system stays the same and the burden of proof is still on prosecution.0 -
I'm not worried that someone might lie in court. I assume people do that all the time.
I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
We've got eyewitness reports. As we saw in this case the eyewitness testimony was a major factor in the "not guilty" verdict.
People are mad about that though. What other evidence would we be looking at then to prove or disprove consent?
Are you talking about in general or if the law was changed to say that consent should be actively obtained rather than currently where it's assumed there's consent unless a person says no.
Because it would be the same as now. If the law was changed to say that consent has to be obtained then prosecutors would still have the same tools at their disposal as they do now.0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you talking about in general or if the law was changed to say that consent should be actively obtained rather than currently where it's assumed there's consent unless a person says no.
Because it would be the same as now. If the law was changed to say that consent has to be obtained then prosecutors would still have the same tools at their disposal as they do now.
You’re assertion here is blatantly false0 -
Ages back in this thread someone said that they didn't believe the defendants deliberately tried to hurt the girl. I agreed. I personally think that the guys didn't care how the woman felt and that they just assumed that they had consent even though they didn't.
Personally I think that's rape. That's penetration without consent. But as has been pointed out by others, that not enough. For the defendants to be guilty of rape they had to be fully aware that they didn't have consent.
It's possible for the woman to have been raped and for the guys not to realise what they were doing. That doesn't mean they're not rapist it just means that they didn't care enough to find out.
No they don't. Not at all? Where did you get that idea from?
If they believed there was consent and if that belief was reasonable it can be used as a defence but it's not a blanket protection.
The complainant testified she said "not him too" to Olding. That is a clear denial of consent, no one would take that as consent. Anything that happened after such a statement is rape. Olding would have known he did not have consent. That statement is at odds with the defendants later actions in front of the witness who walked into the room.0 -
Are you talking about in general or if the law was changed to say that consent should be actively obtained rather than currently where it's assumed there's consent unless a person says no.
Because it would be the same as now. If the law was changed to say that consent has to be obtained then prosecutors would still have the same tools at their disposal as they do now.
Doesn't matter.
I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence of consent.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
I'm not seeing answers to these questions.0 -
Are you too dense to understand that burden is on the prosecution to prove that clear consent was not given. Nobody needs to prove that consent was given, it helps but nobody in our legal system is required to do that. It would be exactly the same as now. Except if CAB freeze you assets the burden of proof is on you that they were obtained legaly.Doesn't matter.
I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence of consent.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
I'm not seeing answers to these questions.0 -
I think the idea about having more discussions about consent - how to be clear about what you are and are not consenting to and how to be sure your partner is consenting - is to have less instances where it ends up with one person feeling like they had been raped/assaulted/violated. It will not solve the issue of proving the consent was given but it may make more young people feel more empowered to be clear about their own consent with partners when engaging in casual sex.
We are talking about crimes here though. So a part of consent discussions would be informing people how to conduct themselves in a legally correct way.
Before we can get there though we would need to establish.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
To use drinking and driving as an example. It's widely accepted as bad behavior that is reckless and dangerous and can come with serious consequences.
We still teach people what the law is though.
The legal limits for fully licenced drivers in Category B are:
50 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (0.05)
67 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine or
22 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath
That's our evidence. The police will measure the alcohol in your blood, urine or breath and you will be dealt with accordingly.
So we know that sex without consent is illegal but we don't seem to have a good way of collecting evidence right?
So what's the equivalent of x mg of alcohol per 100ml for consent? That seems obvious. It's just clear consent. You ask and they give an unambiguous "yes".
The question is how do we record that evidence?
We end up back at the same questions.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?0 -
Are you too dense to understand that burden is on the prosecution to prove that clear consent was not given. Nobody needs to prove that consent was given, it helps but nobody in our legal system is required to do that. It would be exactly the same as now. Except if CAB freeze you assets the burden of proof is on you that they were obtained legaly.
Why not just answer the questions?
If someone can prove consent was given then there is no crime and no court case at all.
If the prosecution are asked to prove that consent was not given then it seems more than reasonable to ask what evidence would be required to prove that consent was not given.
I'm asking 2 simple questions here so why can't you answer them?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?0 -
Are you too dense to understand that burden is on the prosecution to prove that clear consent was not given. Nobody needs to prove that consent was given, it helps but nobody in our legal system is required to do that. It would be exactly the same as now. Except if CAB freeze you assets the burden of proof is on you that they were obtained legaly.
Except, how on earth do you prove that? Unless you have an independent witness or a recording of all interactions from start to finish. Let's not forget, consent can be withdrawn!
How do you prove that consent was either given or not given?
I don't think you're in a position to be calling anyone dense fyi.0 -
You’re assertion here is blatantly false
why?
As someone posted earlier for the defendants to be found guilty they had to know that they didn't have consent. If they assumed they did and weren't informed otherwise then they didn't commit a crime.
Now admittedly that is in northern ireland. Ireland has changed their laws recently. They're covered here
http://www.thejournal.ie/iceland-consent-3943673-Apr2018/
If I've missed anything feel free to add. Rather than just saying it's false and then leaving.0 -
Ages back in this thread someone said that they didn't believe the defendants deliberately tried to hurt the girl. I agreed. I personally think that the guys didn't care how the woman felt and that they just assumed that they had consent even though they didn't.
Personally I think that's rape. That's penetration without consent. But as has been pointed out by others, that not enough. For the defendants to be guilty of rape they had to be fully aware that they didn't have consent.
It's possible for the woman to have been raped and for the guys not to realise what they were doing. That doesn't mean they're not rapist it just means that they didn't care enough to find out.
Again, just to reiterate these men were acquitted of all charges so you cannot say they did anything without the womans consent.
Dara Florence gave evidence that she saw a threesome that gave her no cause for concern and nothing she saw made her doubt in anyway that what was going on in front of her was entirely consensual. Are you now saying the men should have seen something that the only sober witness didnt see.
Paddy Jackson denied he had penetrative sex and the charge of vaginal rape against olding wwas withdrawn.. Unless by penetrative you mean Jacksons fingers you are again bordering on defaming jackson.0 -
The same as now, the difference is that excuse I thought she wanted because she didn't say no can't be used. What is now used to prove consent was given or not given?What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?0 -
Advertisement
-
Except, how on earth do you prove that? Unless you have an independent witness or a recording of all interactions from start to finish. Let's not forget, consent can be withdrawn!
How do you prove that consent was either given or not given?
Are you saying that rape is impossible to prove? Ok. Because rape is sex without consent so if you have no recording you can't prove rape. OK Tell that to those three sisters whose brother just ended in jail recently for repeatedly raping them because there was no video proof of them saying no.0 -
The same as now, the difference is that excuse I thought she wanted because she didn't say no can't be used. What is now used to prove consent was given or not given?
What do you mean "the same as now"? That's all you've got? Not clear examples of the kind of evidence that would be acceptable?
Why not just answer the damn questions?
Shall I rephrase?
What are some examples of evidence the defense can provide to show that clear consent was given?
What are some examples of evidence the prosecution can provide to show that clear consent was not given?
How are we going to teach people about the nature of these crimes and how consent plays a role in that when we don't even know how to point to clear evidence of consent, or lack of consent?
So we'll give people consent classes and then finish off by saying "you'll never be able to prove there was or was not consent in court anyway so it's basically irrelevant from a legal perspective"?0 -
Are you saying that rape is impossible to prove? Ok. Because rape is sex without consent so if you have no recording you can't prove rape. OK Tell that to those three sisters whose brother just ended in jail recently for repeatedly raping them because there was no video proof of them saying no.
Well there must have been some evidence to prove it? What evidence?0 -
How would this "education" work exactly?
We could teach them that "yes means yes" or something but how does that transfer into the justice system?
More or less the same as how No means No. Yes means Yes will mean that there is less confusion about it and perhaps lead to fewer cases of sexual assault.How could the accused prove that they had consent?
How could the accuser prove that consent was not given?
The same way it is done now (except I think the claimant should have their own legal counsel).In a case like this one the men are saying the sex was consensual and the woman is saying that it was not. How can we prove it either way? This is where the concept of reasonable doubt takes over and it's impossible to secure a conviction.
I'd imagine it would still be innocent until proven guilty.The only education here would be to teach people not to get into these kinds of situations at all.
If we are teaching them "you need to get consent" then the logical defense against an accusation is "I got consent".
Yes and you demonstrate how you got consent. Its up to the jury to decide whether you are telling the truth or not.Or are we going to educate them on how to prove consent was given?
You could do that.My understanding is that on a basic level we would be saying "OK, when you are going to have sex with someone you need to ask them if it's OK and they need to say yes before you can begin".
More or less. There will probably be a conversation around condoms anyway.What happens if someone says "yes" but later on says "I did not say yes"?
Why would they say that in the first place?How would the content of educational materials or consent classes or whatever transfer over to a courtroom?
I don't know, but seemingly people don't think its impossible. You just need people trained in this to give the courses - not some embarrased teacher.How would you even factor in issues like alcohol consumption? She says "I was too drunk to consent". He says "she told me she hadn't been drinking".
How is a jury going to make a decision there? Alcohol levels in her blood?
Among others. The defence counsel can also ask them what they had to drink to assess how drunk they were.0 -
why?
As someone posted earlier for the defendants to be found guilty they had to know that they didn't have consent. If they assumed they did and weren't informed otherwise then they didn't commit a crime.
Now admittedly that is in northern ireland. Ireland has changed their laws recently. They're covered here
http://www.thejournal.ie/iceland-consent-3943673-Apr2018/
If I've missed anything feel free to add. Rather than just saying it's false and then leaving.
That's the new Iceland law on consent, not Ireland.
Ireland did change the definition of consent under s.48 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 to the following (case law also adds that a jury should have regard to whether the defendant has an honest belief / reasonable grounds for believing there was consent):
(1) A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act.
(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—
(a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person,
(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious,
(c) he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,
(d) he or she is suffering from a physical disability which prevents him or her from communicating whether he or she agrees to the act,
(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act,
(f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act,
(g) he or she is being unlawfully detained at the time at which the act takes place,
(h) the only expression or indication of consent or agreement to the act comes from somebody other than the person himself or herself.
(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act.
(4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.
(5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.
(6) In this section—
‘sexual act’ means—
(a) an act consisting of—
(i) sexual intercourse, or
(ii) buggery,
(b) an act described in section 3(1) or 4(1) of this Act, or
(c) an act which if done without consent would constitute a sexual assault;
‘sexual intercourse’ shall be construed in accordance with section 1(2) of the Principal Act.”0 -
No, the alcohol was a huge factor but the main one was Dara Florence.
If it wasnt for her the men could be in jail, this is a sobering thought because in that case it would have the womans word against the mens and everyone would say we should believe her because why would she put herself through a court case etc etc.
For example she said Olding used his hands to force her to have oral sex, DF testified Oldings hands were not on the womans head. If you were to believe that Olding did use his hands to force her then its possible to believe the oral sex was non consensual.
Dara Florence testified that Olding was propped up pillows sitting spreadeagled. She didn't say where his hands were. She also said that the Claimant moved her head away (the claimant said that she was afraid that she was taking photos).
Having looked up DF's evidence, she said she was looking for her friend to go home and she heard groaning from the bedroom so she walked in. That was a bit forward of her. Pity she didn't knock first.0 -
Not at all. I think we should strengthen the idea of consent and there is a lot to be done obviously.
The conversation about how all this would work in court still needs to take place.
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?
Nobody seems able to answer this too well. I've seen people talking about signing contracts etc but then that almost removes the ability to withdraw consent. Or at least makes it almost impossible to prove that consent was withdrawn.
Morally it certainly does matter if a person asks for consent or not. To do these things without consent is a terrible act. So I would consider it to be rape if a person did those things without asking.
Legally though? How do we prove that there was consent? How do we prove that their wasn't?
Would consent classes focus on the legal aspect?
A shopkeeper might accuse someone of stealing from them but they might have CCTV footage or eyewitness accounts.
Even a very brief browse shows that in successful shoplifting prosecutions there is often CCTV footage or a security guard stopped the thief when they tried to leave the store.
In other words there is actual evidence that the crime took place.
A brief browse shows there are false allegations of shoplifting too and usually those will be stopped dead when the accused produces their receipt showing that they paid for goods or they will ask the store to check CCTV. Usually these won't even go to court.
The main question about consent here from a legal perspective is how would you prove that consent was given? How would you prove that consent was not given?
If consent is going to be central to these cases but we are struggling to prove that consent was not given then how can we hope to get more prosecutions?
The way I see it, you are good at arguing on semantics and you are exceptionally skilled and being pedantic BUT you are offering nothing of substance and you don't have any solutions at all.
"Are you trying to say that since it's hard to determine consent we should just ditch the idea of consent completely?"
No.
The problem with considering consent in the context of this particular court case is that it is very unlikely the jury's position would be changed by any other or clearer definition of consent.
The witness evidence was such to ensure there was a reasonable doubt, no matter how well you define the issue of consent.0 -
Are we actually reading the same thread here?
On the rape stats, I hate to point it out but you were the one who posited the 1 in 100 figure not me. I absolutely agree that how you splice the data matters, however that point is remarkably inconsistent with the number you provided.
me ?0 -
Ages back in this thread someone said that they didn't believe the defendants deliberately tried to hurt the girl. I agreed. I personally think that the guys didn't care how the woman felt and that they just assumed that they had consent even though they didn't.
Personally I think that's rape. That's penetration without consent. But as has been pointed out by others, that not enough. For the defendants to be guilty of rape they had to be fully aware that they didn't have consent.
It's possible for the woman to have been raped and for the guys not to realise what they were doing. That doesn't mean they're not rapist it just means that they didn't care enough to find out.
Again, just to reiterate these men were acquitted of all charges so you cannot say they did anything without the womans consent.
Dara Florence gave evidence that she saw a threesome that gave her no cause for concern and nothing she saw made her doubt in anyway that what was going on in front of her was entirely consensual. Are you now saying the men should have seen something that the only sober witness didnt see.
Paddy Jackson denied he had penetrative sex and the charge of vaginal rape against olding wwas withdrawn.. Unless by penetrative you mean Jacksons fingers you are again bordering on defaming jackson.
Dara Florence said she saw Paddy Jacksson having penetrative sex. Penis into vagina. That was her evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Appledreams15 wrote: »Dara Florence said she saw Paddy Jacksson having penetrative sex. Penis into vagina. That was her evidence.
No she didnt0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement