False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Caquas wrote: »

I appreciate your efforts to clarify this extraordinary charge but it is bizarre that you believe we live in a country where you could get sentenced to two years in prison for simply


provided only that such action is done

This is pure circularity -
When is this act a crime? When it is done wrongfully!

Oh, but there’s a get out jail card - if you have “lawful authority”!

Do we need lawful authority to ask a girl to go for a walk? Or, sadly, perhaps I should be asking who has lawful authority to ask a girl to go for a walk?

Fortunately, no such nonsense is on our statue books. I quoted the full section previously and it requires at least one of a series of conditions e.g. violence. I ask again - which of these conditions were met in this case?

Thanks for sharing the report on the bail conditions imposed which are extraordinary and just add to my concerns about this case. This is a defendant with an unblemished record but he is subjected to conditions which go far beyond the norm. As everyone knows, with utter disregard our Constitution and the overwhelming wishes of the Irish people as expressed in a in a referendum 25 years ago, our courts routinely grant bail to habitual offenders who walk out of the court and re-offend within hours.

Was he not innocent until proven guilty?


I wonder did he get a chance to express his appreciation as they dragged him off to the cell he will occupy for the coming year, instead of the plane home to Sweden as Counsel had proposed to the court. Will she be a regular visitor as she prepares his appeal?

Seriously?
Do you not know who is a lawful authority who you need to ask if you want a girl to go for a walk with you?
Her parents or legal guardians.
I would not even try to comment on legal cases without knowing such basic things.

I have a friend that was accused here in Ireland, he had to get nude in front of people to prove he was not hairy and that he have small penis, including the Portuguese translator that had come from Limerick. Then he found out it was the second time the girl went to garda to accuse someone. This other man was Irish.

bubblypop wrote: »

You are not aware of any of the evidence in this case.
This man pled guilty in court and only bare facts were given in court.
You do not know what was in the statement of the little girl, neither are you aware of what was in the garda interviews by the defendant.

And, even though you seem to be of the belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a grown man bringing an eleven year old unrelated girl into the woods, there was clearly something more sinister going on.
This seems a very strange cause to be taking on. I won't be engaging anymore with you.

Anyone who reads my previous post will see through this dishonest nonsense.

You asked if it is acceptable for an adult to talk to an underage person and I said

Probably not, though it obviously depends on the particular circumstances.

And yet you claim I believe that

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a grown man bringing an eleven year old unrelated girl into the woods,

How often do I have to say there may be unreported facts? If that ends the discussion of this case, it ends all public discussion of court cases. Our society depends on the open administration of justice but you may prefer to place all your trust in our criminal justice system. Me? I’m looking forward to those documentaries on the horrible murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantir. Is there still a glimmer of hope after 25 years that, despite all the incompetence and corruption, justice could be done in that case?

Those who can’t answer my simple question- what is his crime? - resort to asking why I persist? I understand the nasty innuendo.

(UK)

The justice secretary must resign if he cannot reverse low conviction rates for rape within a year, Labour has said.

The shadow justice secretary accused Robert Buckland of shedding "crocodile tears" this week when he apologised for convictions falling to a record low.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57542194
This is politicising the rate of convictions. We already saw in the UK where plaintiffs had difficulties obtaining due process.

The government has said it is considering allowing victims to pre-record their evidence to spare them the trauma of a courtroom trial.

I think a defendant should have a right to ensure that their defence team can cross-examine accusers in case there are inconsistencies or misinformation in their testimony and/or in the prosecution's case.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

His crime was that he had committed the offence of coercion by making inappropriate comments to a child and trying to compel her to leave where she was playing and accompany him into the woods. ....

Your logic would have impressed the great Soviet jurist, Andrei Vyshinsky, for whom "inappropriate comments", whether to a child or an adult, must be punishable by the law. In this case, where there was no sexual element to the charge, Vyshinsky would have ensured that the accused, in addition to pleading guilty, would have confessed that he wanted to compel this child to espouse vile Trokskyist ideas. However, though undeniably appealing to those who value order and security above all, I believe Vyshinsky's ideas have not yet taken root in our judiciary whose tradition has been to require the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the alleged crime.

So one more time - how do the reported facts amount to the crime of coercion? The offence of coercion is a statutory offence which has nothing to do with "making appropriate comments". It requires that the accused:

(a) uses violence to or intimidates that other person or a member of the family of the other, or

(b) injures or damages the property of that other, or

(c) persistently follows that other about from place to place, or

(d) watches or besets the premises or other place where that other resides, works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such premises or place, or

(e) follows that other with one or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any public place,

So which one (or more) of these was proven here? Surely you don't propose that asking a young girl to go for a walk in the woods, without threats or bribes and without laying a finger on her, amounts to "using violence to or intimidating" her within the meaning of this Act?


In addition, the accused must be proved to have done so

with a view to compel another to abstain from doing or to do any act which that other has a lawful right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and without lawful authority—

Are you saying that he was "compelling" her by the mere act of asking her to go for a walk? Again, in the case we are discussing, there was no evidence of threat or bribery or bad language.

You can continue to ignore the facts and play down the effects of his behaviour on the child as much as you need to, or try to suggest that his legal representation didn’t do their job properly, or everyone else is in the wrong but this guy, but it’s not unreasonable having read the articles (the one you linked to and the articles I linked to), to conclude that this guy was going to prison.

What facts have I ignored? I didn't comment on the effects on the girl.

The Judge's comment you quote is extraordinary:

"This little girl was playing innocently when her innocence was taken from her.

If there was a sexual element in this case, why was he not so charged? Is the Judge saying his is a sex offender who will not be on the sex offenders register?

Let me reiterate my basic points: the facts of this case as reported in the media do not amount to the crime of coercion and, even assuming there are facts which validate the charge, this man was subjected to a sentence which was in line with those for vicious assaults although there was no violence involved.

patnor1011 wrote: »

He probably does not understand that "violence" do not have to be physical or result in blood being spilled.

After dozens of posts. I’ve learned very little about this case except that he was charged - uniquely and bizarrely- with coercion under S.9 of the 1997 Act, not Coercive Control under the 2018 Act.

But I’ve discovered some truly weird views by posters here. Bubblypop thinks it is a crime to talk to children without their parents’s permission, One-eyed Jacked would lock us up for “inappropriate comments” to a child (or adult?):and now patnor wants “violence” to mean...well ... just whatever Patnor says it means - nothing more, nothing less.

Fortunately, violence does have a specific meaning and it’s physical. It’s the meaning we all understand unless we start confusing metaphors with reality. And, sorry Patnor, it requires the use of physical force (but not bloodshed, of course, which is entirely irrelevant to this case)

To quote the OED definition, violence is:

The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.

So, there was no suggestion of violence against this girl. For the umpteenth time, how is he guilty of coercion? (please don’t repeat the answers above).And I know he pled guilty. So did most of those released under the Innocence Project in the U.S. .

up for anything wrote: »

I know more people that haven't bothered reporting sexual assaults because they know the prosecution rate is so low than I know people who have made false accusations.

Of these people you know. How can you be so certain of any sexual assaults or false accusations? There may be truth with some of it, or there may be none. Unless you witnessed the sexual assaults yourself, then you don’t know. And there is no way of knowing about the false accusations. Only the people involved know the truth there in most cases.

How many are we talking on either side?

Imagine looking at the facts of that case, a case where the defendant, a 42 year old man, entered a guilty plea and admitted to trying to coerce an 11 year old girl into the woods for who knows what reason and thinking, yeah, that guy got a raw deal.

Caquas wrote: »

Imagine this - he would have got much the same sentence (though the last year would probably not be suspended) if he was a career criminal who got pissed drunk and stabbed her multiple times. Assuming the ambulance arrived quickly and saved her life. And the sentence would be reduced for his guilty plea. There is no way to reconcile this sentence with the recent sentencing practices of our courts in regard to extremely serious offences against the person.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-of-appeal-increases-sentences-for-high-end-assault-cases-1.4180069

Apples and oranges lad.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Sounds like absolute nonsense, so they didnt bother to report a sexual assualt/rape because they didnt fancy their chances in court. At least if they reported it, there would be a record on the gards side to maybe watch out for this individual.

Also, just because they mightn't win in a criminal case doesn't mean they wouldn't win in a civil case.

As well as this, these so called people that you know, they are ok with a rapist running around free to do it again, they wouldn't even try to stop him/her by reporting it.

Have you ever been raped?

py2006 wrote: »

Thats a very odd and personal question to ask directly!

Perhaps take that to a private message?

No more odd or personal as telling a rape victim how they should act after being raped.

If he's unwilling to answer the question on a private message board then maybe he'd afford the same privacy to real world victims?

...Ghost... wrote: »

You're misguided at best if you think these boards are private. It wouldn't take much searching to be able to identify a lot of people from their post history.

I'm sure there are people who are raped and never report it to anyone. There are also people who are not raped and make a false report either to Gardaí or within their community/circle of friends. I've known 2 people who made false allegations, one of whom admitted to me more than 10 years later that she lied just to get my sympathy. Well, I wasn't long saying goodbye to that nut-job after learning the truth. I felt so bad for the guy she accused. The other whack job, I just knew she was a vindictive liar.

It's irrelevant how private or not this board is, the point is whether Jim is happy to volunteer the information.

If that is information that he would prefer to keep private then why is he not affording that same courtesy to victims of rape?

I didn't want him to answer the question nor did I expect him to, what I was trying to do was make him think that volunteering that information whether it be anonymously online or personal to the police is a very personal and private matter and that it is very dismissive of him to call it nonsense when it is said that some victims do not report their rape because of the low conviction rates.