Report after Belfast rugby rape case calls for anonymity of all sex trial defendants Ellen Coyne August 06 2020 02:30 AM People accused of sexual assault would be granted anonymity in all cases, not just rape trials, under sweeping reforms of how sexual offences cases are carried out.
People accused of rape are currently given anonymity during a trial, until they are convicted. The report said there was "no logical reason" why this shouldn't also apply to people accused of sexual assault. The report also said that while giving anonymity to people accused of sexual offences was a "contested" issue, there is a "heavy stigma" associated with being accused of a sexual offence.
iptba wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0806/1157616-sexual-offences-review-reaction/ Interesting to see all the use of the term "victim" in this report. I also just heard it by another report author on the news on Newstalk.It's not a neutral term and basically doesn't give a presumption of innocence to the defendant.
iptba wrote: » Interesting to see all the use of the term "victim" in this report. I also just heard it by another report author on the news on Newstalk. It's not a neutral term and basically doesn't give a presumption of innocence to the defendant.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That’s because being a victim of rape has nothing to do with anyone’s right to the presumption of innocence. A defendant accused of rape still maintains the presumption of innocence in Law before, during, and provided they aren’t found guilty, they maintain the right to the presumption of innocence following a trial. It’s up to the State to prove their case against a defendant and in that context the alleged victim appears as a witness for the State. Charlie McCreevy made the point when he was Minister for Justice at the time that the review group should review how vulnerable witnesses, including defendants, are treated in the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences -Despite these differences in legislation between Northern Ireland and the Republic, the then Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan asked the working group to review how vulnerable witnesses, including defendants, are treated in the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences.
iptba wrote: » You yourself used the phrase "alleged victim" which seems much more accurate and appropriate.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You made the point that referring to the victim as the victim somehow has any bearing on the defendants right to the presumption of innocence - it doesn't.
iptba wrote: » My point was not necessarily meant to be in a literal, legal sense that the “presumption of innocence” no longer existed. It was to do with perception of innocence or guilt and need for caution in discussions of what may have happened in particular cases. Your wording of “alleged victim” seems preferable in some contexts.
bubblypop wrote: » A victim of crime is still a victim, whether anyone is found guilty or not.
neonsofa wrote: » I understand what you mean, and I wholeheartedly agree. However I think what the poster was saying was if a case is brought where a woman says she was raped and a man says it was consensual sex, if we say she was the victim of crime in that case, it seems implied that we believe her version of events and not his, because he is claiming no crime was ever committed. I am not claiming that this applies in the legal sense, just that I can see what the poster means by the language not being neutral.
bubblypop wrote: » That's that poster implying that. A victim of a crime, any crime, is a victim. If my house was burgled & someone was found not guilty in court, then I am still a victim of burglary. It has nothing to do with the defendant in a criminal trial.
joeguevara wrote: » I think what the poster was getting at is that in the case of any sexual crime, the act of sex is rarely in doubt, and the people involved are rarely in doubt but consent is. By calling someone a victim, it gives the illusion that the accused is guilty. It is slightly different to a burglary case.While this is slightly a moot point as the 'victim' would never, or shold never be called a victim in court, I think for the purposes of the document they should be classified as the accuser.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That wouldn’t make any sense, as the document refers to support for victims of rape and sexual assault? ‘Accuser’ would make no sense in that context. It’s used here too, to refer to victims of crime, not ‘accusers’ -Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 It’s a neutral term that isn’t saying anything about anyone else other than the person who is the victim of a crime. If they’re not the victim of a crime then obviously, they’re not a victim of a crime and they’re not who the document is referring to.
joeguevara wrote: » Its not a neutral term as even the interpretation in the Act that you provided states'“victim” means a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, which was directly caused by an offence. As I said, in the case of the type of crime being discussed, it is quite possible that the offence didn't occur in the first place. (Btw I was explaining why I think the original poster raised it not what my beliefs are).
One eyed Jack wrote: » That’s saying nothing about the accused though, which ipta’s point that referring to the victim as the victim somehow implies that the accused is guilty. It doesn’t. It implies that the person has been the victim of a crime. That’s how they are to be treated, as the victim of a crime -Application of Act 4. (1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to a decision referred to in section 8 (2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) which is made before the commencement of the provisions concerned. (2) The application of this Act is not dependent on the commission of an offence having to be established (nor is it dependent on establishing whether the person concerned suffered any harm caused by an offence).
joeguevara wrote: » Can you not see how it could be construed in this situation, specifically since there are examples of very recent false accusations? However, it is such a minor point to be discussed and the document should be applauded for some very positive recommendations which protect the accused and the accuser.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I can certainly see how it’s being construed alright, particularly in light of recent cases where false allegations were made or the defendants were found not guilty. It’s cobbling together a couple of different ideas to suggest that victims of crime should not be treated as victims of crime until the person or persons who is/are accused by the State of having committed a crime is found guilty. That’s simply not how investigations of crimes are carried out. The person or persons who make a complaint are treated as the victims of crime, and the Gardaí carry out an investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed, and who is responsible for committing a crime. The person who is accused by the State of having committed an offence is entitled to a trial if they maintain they are innocent. It still doesn’t suggest that the person isn’t the victim of a crime. The recommendations are intended to offer further protections to both the victims of crime and to defendants, rather than the accuser and the accused. Obviously it doesn’t offer any protection to people who make false allegations, because they’re not the victims of crime. If the DPP considers it is in the public interest, they may well pursue a case against the person or persons for attempting to pervert the course of justice. If a person is found not guilty it doesn’t mean a crime hasn’t been committed either, it means the person who is accused by the State of having committed a crime maintains the presumption of innocence in law, and their good reputation remains intact.
joeguevara wrote: » And this documents recommendations surrounding anonymity of the accused definitely makes it easier to and more likely that their good reputation remains intact. I actually think its an interesting point to debate from an academic stand-point but in reality is irrelevant as the accused will never hear or see the accuser being characterised as a 'victim' when they receive their legal advice.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It really doesn’t as it doesn’t serve the interests of justice which must be seen to be done by the public in order to maintain the confidence of the public in the judicial system. The defendant will of course see the victim referred to as the victim by the prosecution. The idea of neutrality just doesn’t apply to an adversarial justice system in reality.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Was the lady who falsely claimed she was sexually assaulted by a well known comedian a ‘victim’? The case was thrown out of court by the judge because CCTV evidence showed that what she claimed happened did not happen. .
Tea drinker wrote: » But shoe on the other foot, maybe the only crime is a false accusation of rape, does the victim (from the outset) receive free legal aid.
neonsofa wrote: » especially in instances where it hasn't been established whether a crime actually occurred in the first place.
bubblypop wrote: » I'm fairly sure the DPP doesn't direct charges in a case where it hasn't been established that a crime occured. The court doesn't decide whether a crime has been committed or not, they decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. I think this is the problem with some rape cases. People automatically assume no crime was committed if the defendant is found not guilty. The courts don't decide that.
bubblypop wrote: » No, she obviously wasn't a victim. She wasn't a victim of a crime therefore not a victim. If she falsely accused someone, she obviously committed a crime.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » So how does that does that fit in with “A victim of crime is still a victim, whether anyone is found guilty or not.” The alleged crime didn’t happen, so calling someone a victim before it has been established that a crime has actually happened is misleading, as this case clearly shows. She was an alleged victim when she made the accusation and when the court case started. Just because she says she was a victim does not make her a victim.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
