bubblypop wrote: » She is not a victim because a crime didn't take place. A crime can still take place whether anyone is found guilty or not.
joeguevara wrote: » I saw you raise this public thing previously. They are being tried in public (albeit in camera in most cases). Just because Margareet doesn't get to see a name in the Daily Mirror while shes having her morning fag and coffee doesn't mean confidence is lost in the our judicial system. It would be stopped very quickly if I heard someone referred to as victim in a court of law. If the prosecution continued to call someone that, it would be grounds for a mistrial.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m not just referring to Margareet getting to see a name in the Daily Mail I was referring to the fact that the general public will see that the judicial system functions whether they are the victim of a crime, or whether they are the person accused of committing a crime. In that context Margareet’s perspective of the judicial system is just as important as Paddy Jackson or Sil Fox’s perspective. I don’t see how the prosecution referring to the victim as the victim is grounds for a mistrial tbh? For anyone who’s interested in reading it though, the full report is here -REVIEW OF PROTECTIONS FOR VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Would you have considered her a victim before the trial? Or up to the point the CCTV showed she was a liar?
joeguevara wrote: » With regards to repeatedly referring to someone as the victim, if it can be shown to be prejudicial to the jury (bar is very low) then it would be grounds for mistrial.
joeguevara wrote: » With regards to everything being in public, nothing changes if person is referred to as X as opposed to Paddy Jackson, Irish Rugby International. Granting anonymity doesn't stop all important and salient aspects being reported. So you are incorrect with regards to your preface. Its the whole point of the report. Interestingly Paddy Jacksons name wouldn't have been dislosed in the SOuth. Mr. Fox is a most abhorrent case. Because the alleged (actually don't even need to say that) false offence was on the lower scale, he didn't get his anonymity. In my eyes that meant justice wasn't seen to be done and naming them actually was detrimiental to that.
jimwallace197 wrote: » Ignore her Rodney, this is one of those posters who believes all woman and believes all men are guilty if accused. Even in this case where obvious cctv evidence exonerated the defendant. She is part of the problem in modern Ireland, unfortunately there are many like her.
bubblypop wrote: » Excuse me. I have said in this case she is not a victim. I believe that all crimes should be investigated properly. How dare you say I am; ' this is one of those posters who believes all woman and believes all men are guilty if accused. ' I am going to suggest you have little or no experience in dealing with any type of victim or any type of crime.
jimwallace197 wrote: » With the type of attitude you have, I hope you are not involved in dealing with any type of victim or any type of crime. Completely out of your depth.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Ok I’m glad we cleared that one up, I was kinda confused as to what you meant there, I‘d have said the same of anything which could prejudice the jury against the defendant, violating their right to a fair trial (I’ll come back to that one in a minute). I disagree with that, because it stops what IMO are the most salient facts being reported, and what is reported are the salacious details in the national tabloid rags that only Margareet is interested in reading about. One of the main points of the report (and not the whole point) is that there is a stigma attached to being accused of committing a criminal offence such as rape and/or sexual assault, and anonymity doesn’t deal with that stigma, it literally brushes it under the carpet and perpetuates it. Within their communities as was the case with Sil Fox, the accusation led to the loss of income and damage to his reputation within the community. On being found not guilty of any wrongdoing, it is a public acknowledgement that he has done no wrong, thereby restoring his reputation. If defendants were granted anonymity then the chances of their reputation being publicly restored are lessened by the fact that the Margareets in the community will be able to continue to suggest there was no smoke without fire. Public acknowledgement of the fact that Sil Fox maintains his good reputation tends to put a dent in Margareets motivation to spread gossip. I said I’d come back to the point about the defendants right to a fair trial - one of the reasons I can’t see many of the recommendations in this report being implemented, apart from the idea of there being insufficient resources and funding or the fact that it requires changes in legislation or the fact that it means an impingement upon Judges discretion, apart from aaaaalll that - is simply the fact that many of the recommendations could prejudice the defendants right to a fair trial, and could indeed be argued in pre-trial hearings as having the potential to prejudice a jury and therefore violate a a defendants right to a fair trial.
bubblypop wrote: » Over 20 years actually. And not nearly out of my depth, thanks for your concern!
joeguevara wrote: » Extremely hard but rewarding work if say. In what way does it assist though being classified as a victim. As long as you have the benefits and all of the assistance, why argue for a word. I'm benign either side BTW..
jimwallace197 wrote: » Its extremely concerning if someone with your attitude has been working in this line of work for over 20 years. Its not surprising really that false rape accusations are starting to rise when people like yourself are involved in the process. You use the comparison of a house break in as a reason to believe the victim. Rape is one of the if not the most heinous crimes to be accused and charged of, its not a burglary. And alot of the time if there is a serious crime like this, the least the ags can do is properly investigate all parties including the person making the accusation before attempting to ruin someones life. This is not losing the confidence of the community, its reinstating because certainly these days, its at an all time low.
bubblypop wrote: » Perhaps you don't understand. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect & dignity. Everyone. Everyone who reports a crime as a victim or everyone who has been accused of committing a crime. You clearly have no idea how investigations work. In fact, I think this post must be a troll post because you cannot believe that AGS & the DPP are going around 'attempting to ruin someone's life ' without investigation! You know that doesn't happen.
joeguevara wrote: » I think we are in agreement. Granting anonymity still allows cases to be reported, just nothing that identifies. I'm at a loss a little (have only skimmed the report) but we offer anonymity to the accused for serious sex crimes. For instance you won't see a well known personality named in a rape trial unless convicted.
joeguevara wrote: » My one concern about offering accusers, pre trial legal advice is that they would be coached making it difficult to tell if someone is telling the truth or not..
One eyed Jack wrote: » I dunno about that. Jump to Chapter 4 in the report which deals with Anonymity and specifically Section 17 which makes the point that a trial judge is not entitled to impose a restriction on the reporting of an accused persons name solely in order to protect that persons right to privacy. It goes on to refer to an imperative specified in Article 34.1 of the Irish Constitution which requires that, save in such special and limited circumstances as may be prescribed by law, justice shall be administered in public. This is the point I’m coming from that in order to address the stigma surrounding accusations of a sexual nature, that seeing justice being done in public increases public confidence that should they ever be accused of committing a crime of a sexual nature, it takes the sting out of the stigma to have it publicly acknowledged that they are not guilty of committing an offence of which they were accused. It actually helps people’s understanding of the judicial system, as opposed to feeling immediately ashamed at the mere accusation of a criminal offence of a sexual nature. Essentially it puts any liability for the accusation back on the person making the accusation, as opposed to the person they are accusing having to defend themselves. Essentially, the accused (and indeed the public) are less likely to have to endure this sort of a reaction in public - Irish outcry over teenager's underwear used in rape trial The Judge would still retain discretion in giving directions to the jury about that sort of behaviour -The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old Ana Kriégel has told the jurors they could rely on lies alleged to have been told by the boys as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established there was no other innocent explanation. Mr Justice Paul McDermott was continuing his summing up of the law and the evidence in the case. Judge tells jury to examine all aspects of Kriégel case One of the recommendations being that Judges need to be ‘educated’. I can’t see that one flying myself tbh, as it completely ignores the fact that Judges have to have discretion in order to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial and there is no opportunity for a conviction being overturned on appeal.
joeguevara wrote: » Can you name one person in Ireland who was found not guilty in a rape case who didn’t consensually asked to be named....by Ireland I’m not talking Northern Ireland. I’m at a loss at what you mean about people bring named takes the stigma out of being accused of sexual assault. As someone who practiced in criminal law, with some of these cases, a person doesn’t read back on previous cases and say, actually it’s not too bad being accused of rape and random strangers knowing about it. Similarly, the death penalty is not someone thinks about before they actually murder someone. I can see why you have come to your hypothesis but from a practical perspective it is inherently flawed and that is no disrespect.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nope, I can’t think of a single person. That’s not really the point though. My point is that unless in exceptional circumstances, such as in order to protect the identity of the victim, it isn’t necessary to impose reporting restrictions on the identity of the defendant or defendants in any case because all it does is perpetuates the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence. I can’t name the person accused in the example used by Ruth Coppinger, but the local Margareets with a penchant for gossip will certainly be able to name him, whereas public acknowledgement of the upholding of a persons right to their reputation would make it that much more difficult for anyone choosing to spread gossip or to try and undermine the judgement of the Courts. Can’t easily do that if the person remains publicly unidentifiable. I don’t take it as any disrespect but my perspective is based upon the administration of justice being visible to the public so that the public have a greater understanding of the law and judicial procedures and so on, so that they don’t form misguided beliefs about the law and their rights either as victims of crime, or as people who are accused of committing a crime. From a practical perspective it means that everyone in society has a better idea of their rights and are less likely to imagine that justice is unlikely to be administered, regardless of the opinions of the Margareets in the community.
joeguevara wrote: » Ok, I’m presuming the Coppinger case you are talking about is the ‘thong’ case where the accused was acquitted. He has never been publicly named and I will explain why. Ireland, as far as I’m aware is the only common law jurisdiction where the identity of an accused in a rape case is fully protected unless convicted, and only then if the victim allows it or its for the common good. I think you’re argument is strong but I’m not sure if you are aware of this protection.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m aware of the fact that Ireland is something of an anomaly in this regard, and I’m aware that’s why the defendant wasn’t publicly named. In the report the recommendation is that this protection is extended to all persons accused in sexual offences cases in order to protect people from the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence, but IMO all that’s likely to do is have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect. There’s already a stigma attached to being accused of rape, so the proposed solution is to extend the effect of that stigma to being accused of sexual assault. It won’t do anything to reduce the stigma attached to being accused of committing rape. It does nothing to vindicate a persons right to their good name if it isn’t publicly acknowledged that they are innocent. Kinda undermines the fundamental purpose of a persons right to their good name IMO by making it difficult for them to restore their good name and leaves them with the choice to go public themselves anyway, or live with the stigma and the rumours and suspicion. I don’t see that as justice being administered tbh.
joeguevara wrote: » Ok, I have read your argument about the definition of justice not only being done but seen to be done, and you come across as a reasonable, articulate and knowledgeable person and actually a delight to be engaged in a conversation with. I’m going to ask you one question. What benefit to society was there with Mr. Sil Fox being publicly named before and during his trial as opposed to mr x.
One eyed Jack wrote: » For one thing I suppose we were all spared the indignity of Ruth Coppinger waving her smalls about in the Dáil again :pac: But seriously, being publicly named meant that justice was seen to be done and that his right to his good name was upheld and vindicated by the Courts decision in the case, whereas in the case of Mr. x, there was no public vindication, and his reputation within the community remains sullied by the accusation. People who knew of the original accusation will also know of the verdict, but will be far less likely to focus on the verdict, leaving the accusation open to being perpetuated. The only legal recourse left open to the accused is to publicly identify themselves in order to restore their good name and vindicate their right themselves. That can be incredibly expensive in any case - Court overturns damages awarded during High Court sex abuse case and calls for rehearing of evidence
joeguevara wrote: » See that is where there you are wrong. That poor man has had his life ruined and family ripped apart. I don’t think you have any idea how damaging it is. If you don’t agree, fair enough and I have no more to say on the subject.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I do, and it’s precisely because of my own experience and the experiences of others that I argue that anonymity only perpetuates the stigma rather than reduces it. That’s why I’m not solely focused on the outcomes of one case for one individual, but rather I’m focused on what anonymity means for the perception of justice by society as a whole. That way people don’t get the wrong idea about the purpose of the judicial system.
joeguevara wrote: » That will never trump the devastation that someone like mr fox feels.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/months-of-hell-comedian-sil-fox-cleared-of-sex-assault-in-bar-1.4263855 Again, naming a person in a case like this gives no further insight about the purpose of the legal system.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
