Thongs = Consent

It's unfair to imply he was found not guilty just because of that comment unless you were present in the jury room. I think judges should point out to the jury to disregard the comments like that but you can't blame barrister for trying on behalf of their client.

Neyite wrote: »

Out of interest, are there any guidelines with regard to remarks made by either side during closing arguments - I know that during the witness testimony things stated can get struck from the record or the judge can direct a jury to disregard a statement/ get counsel to rephrase, but is there any such restrictions for the closing arguments?

What would those guidelines suggest in the like of a murder case?
Defence have to defend.

Neyite wrote: »

If the comment had no bearing on the outcome of the trial, why would the barrister even suggest it?

Were you in the jury room to know that was what influenced decision? I don't like the comment, I don't agree with the comment but neither I think it is fair to conclude about someone's guilt or innocence on the basis of fairly limited reporting (I haven't seen victim's statement or many other details of closing statements).

Neyite wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html?utm_source=iosapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

Counsel for the defence, Ms Elizabeth O’Connell SC, said this.

Not sure how that was even allowed in the closing remarks to be honest. I thought we had moved away from implying that women's outfits made men all uncontrollably rapey but I didn't realise that according to some we merely sidestepped to it meaning that if our underwear is a certain shape or fabric, we are automatically consenting to sexual contact - wanted or not - from any man in the vicinity.

I'm rather worried about my sensible M&S granny pants now considering they have a lace front to them and they are...black.

The judge can still order the jury to disregard the remarks even in closing arguments if they aren’t considered relevant to the case, related to the evidence already presented, are intended to mislead the members of the jury, or are considered unreasonable. They have a fair bit of leeway in what is or isn’t considered reasonable in those circumstances because it’s the defendant is on trial, not the witnesses, and the defendant has a right to a fair trial, whereas the witnesses have no such right because they aren’t on trial accused of a criminal offence.

It’s kind of like arguing that the prosecution shouldn’t be allowed to present their case because it assumes an innocent person is guilty. The defendant always has the right to the presumption of innocence in a court of law unless they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Of course the prosecution would have to present their case even when the implication is that an innocent person may be found guilty of a criminal offence.

It still doesn’t matter what you’re wearing if you’re ever the victim of rape, but that’s a completely different context to whether or not what you were wearing is relevant as regards the evidence presented in a Court of Law.

Shelga wrote: »

Disgusting closing comments. Even worse that they were from a female barrister

I don’t think they would sound any less disgusting or worse coming from a man either. I understand what you mean, but the point I’m making is that whether they’re a man or a woman, they’re a barrister first and foremost and they are duty bound by their profession to act in the best interests of their client and defending their client to the best of their ability. Painting the witnesses for the prosecution in a bad light in these kinds of cases is par for the course unfortunately, from the witnesses perspective at least. I don’t feel that witnesses are ever sufficiently prepared for this inevitability. It’s a risky strategy as it can play either way with the jury - the fact that the barrister made the comment may in some jurors minds paint the barrister as a scumbag and on that basis motivate them to find the defendant guilty, evidence be damned. Jurys are after all ordinary menbers of the public like all of us here with our own prejudices and biases which undoubtedly influence our attitudes towards, and our perceptions of, other people.

B0jangles wrote: »

But surely barristers have a responsibility to the wider community as well to not promulgate dangerous myths about how a woman's clothing is a reliable guide to whether or not she is likely to have sex?

Imagine if they were still going around claiming that alleged victims were clearly promiscuous because they had dyed their hair blonde/gone to a bar alone/went out walking without a chaperone. That's a world we're trying to get away from, not head back in to.

Barristers have no responsibility towards the wider community for anything. Their only responsibility is to act in the best interests of their client and defend their client to the best of their ability. I’m not sure where you ever got the impression that those kinds of arguments aren’t still common in these kinds of cases. The article in Neyite’s opening post only mentions that the barrister made the remarks, it doesn’t say anything about whether or not the judge ordered the jury to disregard the remarks. The point I’m making is that it’s just as common for a judge to order the jury to disregard remarks like that, but the cats out of the bag at that stage and like I said - remarks like that can go either way in influencing the members of the jury.

That comment seemed unprofessional.

There was a long debate here about the Belfast rape case and the verdict. There was a table in one of the threads (I can't find it) which outlined the several different steps or grey areas between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and not guilty. Apparently a rapist would have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. However there are several grey areas in between "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "not guilty". I am not a legal professional, perhaps a solicitor could provide a link to that table.

It is horrific to think that a barrister, a supposedly educated woman, would make a remark in court about a teenager's lacy thong. Many young girls and women wear skimpy underwear for the fun of it and not because they want to have sex. I presume this woman doesn't have daughters.

As EB says, my feeling on this is that the comment itself is contextual, but we don't have the context. The closest thing I can find (from the examiner) is;
"Ms O’Connell suggested the complainant was, on the night, open to the possibility of being with someone and that the person she became attracted to ended up being the defendant."

Reading between the lines it sounds like part of the prosecution's case was that the victim gave a statement claiming she was just out for a bit of drinking and dancing, wasn't interested in hooking up with anyone, and wasn't at all interested in the defendant (hence the argument over whether they were kissing or not).

In that case, the defence's call to look at what she was wearing, is not so much to say that "she was gamey and up for it", but rather to discredit her claim that she wasn't open to meeting anyone that night. Discrediting the other side's witnesses is generally the primary goal of any barrister, even if it comes across as callous.

That said, to suggest that any person going out wouldn't put on nice, clean clothes unless they were hoping for a bit of rough-and-tumble, seems like a ridiculous argument which hoped to appeal to outdated sentiment. "I'm not interested in hooking up tonight, so I'm going to go to this fancy club in my hoodie and granny pants." Said no woman, ever.

It's completely plausible that this girl put on her "good" knickers because that's what you do when you're going out. And she never once thought, "Hopefully someone gets to see these".

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'd say it's more than plausible, it's extremely likely. I'm sitting in work in a lacy thong that nobody is going to see, other than my dog if she decides to bust into room while I'm getting changed later. My choice of underwear says absolutely nothing other than that I like thongs.

The comment made in the trial is deeply disturbing to me and I can't think of any further context that would make it any less so, tbh.

Completely agree with this. If I'm going out, whether it be to work or a pub, and I'm wearing a nice outfit, I don't then go and stick on a sports bra and my worn out granny pants, I wear nice undergarments too. It doesn't mean I'm going to be showing them to my colleagues or those I am drinking with, it is purely because I like wearing nice things and I don't like putting together an outfit and then not being put together with the rest of my attire, regardless of who will see it. I'd imagine many women are the same. God forbid we wear something nice to feel good in ourselves, nope has to be about men.

Also, not sure why they deem a thong as a particularly... sex related garment, I find them most comfortable so even my comfort underwear are penneys best cotton thongs with lace trim :pac:

seamus wrote: »

That said, to suggest that any person going out wouldn't put on nice, clean clothes unless they were hoping for a bit of rough-and-tumble, seems like a ridiculous argument which hoped to appeal to outdated sentiment. "I'm not interested in hooking up tonight, so I'm going to go to this fancy club in my hoodie and granny pants." Said no woman, ever.

While I completely disagree with the barristers remarks, one of the reasons it was brought up at all is the contra truth to your statement. Had she been wearing a hoodie and granny pants, then it's something the prosecution would have used to indicate she wasn't looking for a hook up, ergo, with the opposite scenario, the defence would be negligent not to highlight this.

Similarly, if a man was assaulted, and had a condom in his pocket, that would be used in a similar manner (and we can blame society that women are judged on what they wear more than men are).