nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

False rape accusation...who would you believe?

jeanjolie

False rape accusation is an unlikely though possibly frightening thing that can happen to a man. He can lose his job, lose friends, go on the sex offender list, and even if he's removed of it, vigilantes will probably attack him. I'm not aware of anyone in Ireland who has been accused but then again I don't have many male friends.

Getting to the point, rape is a pretty difficult crime to prosecute due to the nature (the act is legal itself), however on the unfortunate flip side, your 'character' and 'reputation' is usually judged regardless of evidence.

An example is n the US, a high number of false rape cases involved poor African American males due to their generally low socioeconomic status, high crime rates (for that racial group, not every black person). Even if they would never harm their children or girlfriend, the idea that 'If you've done this in the past, then you've probably done this or are capable of this' is very prevalent.

So now using an Irish example, if you go back to you secondary school as a teenager and knew this weird quiet lad who was quite creepy and made some sexual jokes and inappropriate jokes on and off. A girl you know in your social circle befriends this guy, they hang out and have rough anal sex, she doesn't like it, falls out with this guy and then she spreads this rumor that she was sodomized by this guy. Would you believe her? This guy is very weird and she does share weird things that he has said to her, but denies rape.

It's scary to think that a bunch of teen lads from my school would probably beat up the guy based of a lie like that, but then again he doesn't have a good reputation.

Realistically, what would you do?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

...Ghost...

Smee_Again wrote: »

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?

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.

Smee_Again

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?

py2006

Smee_Again wrote: »

Have you ever been raped?

Thats a very odd and personal question to ask directly!

Perhaps take that to a private message?

Smee_Again

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?

jimwallace197

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.

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.

Smee_Again

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.

Caquas

Smee_Again wrote: »

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.

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

Smee_Again

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.

One eyed Jack

Caquas wrote: »

One-eyed Jacked would lock us up for “inappropriate comments” to a child (or adult?)..,

So, there was no suggestion of violence against this girl. For the umpteenth time, how is he guilty of coercion?

You’ve either misunderstood what I said, or you’re purposely choosing to misrepresent what I said, but that’s definitely not what I said. I pointed out that if a complaint is made to Gardaí, then you might be interviewed by Gardaí investigating the incident. I was specifically referring to the man in this case when I said that he was going to prison, the only question was for how long.

For the umpteenth time, he is guilty of committing the criminal offence of coercion because one of the essential elements of the charge is intimidation. It’s why I pointed out the difference between the case in Sligo where the man was charged with coercion, and the Judge determined he could not reasonably be found guilty, because there was no intimidation.

I have no doubt you’ll still claim there was no intimidation in this case even though the child ran home to her mother and they made a complaint to Gardaí and the Court heard that the child was physically sick after the incident and told her mother she thought she was going to be taken and had seen him near her home before this incident -

Magnus Nordell, aged 42, approached the child, who was innocently playing near her home in Cork, and asked her to go for a walk with him to nearby woods.

Detective Garda Bryan Murphy said the 11-year-old fled in distress and was physically sick when she told her mother what had happened.

Det Gda Murphy said the child gave an excellent description of the accused. She told her mother that she thought she was going to be taken and that she had seen the man near her home before.

The accused was identified and gardaí went to his home at Manor Close, Thornbury Heights, Rochestown, Cork, and arrested him. When interviewed, Nordell gave a physical description of the injured party and admitted that he had seen her on a number of occasions near her home — not in the area of Rochestown — before.

“He admitted talking to her. He denied asking her to walk with him, saying that what he said was he was going for a walk. He downplayed it and said it was a misunderstanding,” Det Gda Murphy said.

Man who identifies as an involuntary celibate jailed in Cork for coercion of child, 11

...Ghost...

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?

up for anything

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.

Caquas

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. .

patnor1011

bubblypop wrote: »

No, they were not.
As is the case in all cases were someone has pleased guilty.
You keep comparing this case to completely different cases, with different facts and different charges. I fail to see what your issue is.

Unless you think it's perfectly reasonable for grown men to attempt to take little girls into woods without the permission of their parents.

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

[Deleted User]

Caquas wrote: »

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.

No, they were not.
As is the case in all cases were someone has pleased guilty.
You keep comparing this case to completely different cases, with different facts and different charges. I fail to see what your issue is.

Unless you think it's perfectly reasonable for grown men to attempt to take little girls into woods without the permission of their parents.

...Ghost...

iptba wrote: »

(UK)

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.

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.

I wonder if the low conviction rate has something to do with an increase in allegations which are less and less credible, lowering the overall percentage convicted. If you triple the complaints made but the genuine rape, or sexual assault number (not percentage) stays the same per year, then it "looks like" less people are being convicted, when the truth is that too many innocent people are being dragged through the courts because of an upsurge in #metoo porkies.

This creates more victims.

The complainants need to be cross examined in order for the defendants to have any chance of a fair trial. This is unfortunate for genuine victims to have to go through, but there is a lot more at stake if we wrap every complainant in cotton wool. Opening the system up to allow pre-recorded statements is an invitation for abuse.

Caquas

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.

jimwallace197

iptba wrote: »

(UK)

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.

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.

There seems to be a road that parts of the government/current justice minister and DPP want to go down & thats making accusations of sexual assault/rape as easy as possible for the alleged victim without taking into consideration the rights of the defendant. This would be another step in this direction.

Anecdotally, Im hearing of more and more instances of false rape/sexual assault accusations & we have to look at the bigger picture here. Id love to know the rates at a national level but its highly doubtful the government/gards or DPP would release that information.

Now, while the likes of bubblypop & co would like people to believe accusers unconditionally irrespective of how inconsistent they are in their behavior and how likely they are to be motivated in telling a lie. We have to ask ourselves what kind of a society are we going to end up having if various feminist lobby groups end up getting their way.

A society where a man is afraid of being alone with a woman in a work environment especially if he is her superior, one where men are even more afraid than now to approach a woman romantically & one where scorned or spurned potential lovers/ex partners can destroy a mans life knowing they wont suffer any consequences of their actions. I don't know about ye but this is not a society I want to live in.

iptba

(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

Caquas wrote: »

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

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. The girl felt threatened and frightened and ran home to her mother and they made a complaint to the Gardaí. You’re trying to compare the circumstances which happened in this particular case with circumstances where no complaint was made against you.

If there had been a complaint made against you, then you might have been interviewed as part of an investigation into the incident. In this particular case, the Gardaí carried out an investigation, and the man was arrested and charged with committing the offence of coercion under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, an offence which if tried under indictment can carry a maximum sentence of up to five years.

The Judge was of the opinion that a non-custodial sentence would be inappropriate as the circumstances were serious enough that the girl was still experiencing significant ongoing effects as a consequence of the incident where the man approached her and made inappropriate comments to her and tried to have her accompany him into the woods.

There’s no need for any innuendo or any of the rest of it, the experience itself was frightening enough for the girl to feel her life was under threat, and the Garda ASU aren’t called out on a whim, the circumstances were obviously considered serious enough to warrant their involvement in the search for the man. 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. The only question was for how long, and that question was addressed by the Judge in the case -

Judge Sean O'Donnabhain said that the young girl had gone through a "truly frightening experience".

"This little girl was playing innocently when her innocence was taken from her. The plea is helpful and he co-operated and is remorseful. But this is a serious incident. A non-custodial sentence is not adequate.

"This girl was innocently playing in the middle in the day and what has occurred has had significant ongoing effects."

Judge O'Donnabhain jailed Mr Nordell for two years suspending the final year of the sentence on condition that he leave the jurisdiction upon his release and not return for a period of five years.

You asked was the sentence fair, or was it too harsh and arbitrary. It was perfectly fair.

Caquas

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.

Wibbs

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.

Nail. On. Head.

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.

The fact the man in question pled guilty rather than go to trial doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture. If I found myself in court over something like that I would fight it to the bitter end and I doubt many innocent men would be any different. Hell I'll fight a speeding ticket if I'm innocent of the charge. I have. I got a speeding ticket in the post, on a road I don't think I've been on in twenty years and I was in Spain at the time of the so called offence and since bilocation is not in my repertoire I went along to court and fought it, even though a crap solicitor(family friend) suggested I just pay it to save hassle. Sod that. In something so serious like that case/accusation? Not Guilty Judge. Prove otherwise.

This seems a very strange cause to be taking on.

Indeed. I most certainly get the man as potential predator by virtue of simply being male vibe that can be in play in our societies to the point in some circles of demonisation of the male and that has certainly been ramped up in recent years, but the law and society and people should take each case on its merits.

[Deleted User]

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.

Caquas

bubblypop wrote: »

Presumably you are not underage now?
Do you consider it acceptable to ask an eleven year old girl to go for a walk without her parents permission now?

Acceptable? Probably not, though it obviously depends on the particular circumstances. But it is very disturbing that there seems to be a general belief that the mere act of asking an underage girl to walk in the woods is a crime. And we are not talking about hypotheticals. I say we are now living in a State that sends a man to jail for a year (plus one year suspended) for nothing more than “unacceptable” behaviour.

Despite longwinded, repetitive responses using circular logic (“he is guilty of coercion because coercion is defined as ....well, the thing that he did, or definitely would have done, knowing his dirty mind”), no one hear has explained how this man is guilty of the offence charged i.e. how the facts fit all the elements of the offence of coercion under s.9 of the 1997 Act.

Of course, there may be many factors in this case which have not been reported in the media but it it seems everyone else on Boards thinks this sentence is OK just on the facts reported in the media which amount to nothing more than “unacceptable behaviour”.

Reflecting on your comments, I now realise that any adult would be well advised never to talk to a young person without prior, express parental consent because if the young person complains to the Gardai for any reason, the Gardai and the DPP will assume criminal intent on the part of the adult and press a charge of coercion even if nothing happened other than a simple, non-threatening conversation.

How deeply sad for our society and especially for young people. A generation of Rapunzels?

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

Presumably you are not underage now?
Do you consider it acceptable to ask an eleven year old girl to go for a walk without her parents permission now?

+1000 I don't even...

[Deleted User]

Caquas wrote: »

You think it is illegal to ask a girl to go for a walk unless you get permission from her parents or guardians? Are you living in some medieval fairytale?

It's been a long time and maybe the law has gotten a lot stricter since I used to ask girls to go for a walk (yes, they were underage and so was I and therefore I couldn't possibly have legal authority).

Rest assured, like the defendant in this case, I made no threats, offered no bribes (does ice-cream count?) or in any way coerced these girls. Come to think of it, though, my good looks and brilliant wit can be intimidating. I'd better hand myself in to the Gardai now.:D

As you say, best not to comment when you don't know even basic things.

Presumably you are not underage now?
Do you consider it acceptable to ask an eleven year old girl to go for a walk without her parents permission now?

Das Reich

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.

Caquas

patnor1011 wrote: »

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.

You think it is illegal to ask a girl to go for a walk unless you get permission from her parents or guardians? Are you living in some medieval fairytale?

It's been a long time and maybe the law has gotten a lot stricter since I used to ask girls to go for a walk (yes, they were underage and so was I and therefore I couldn't possibly have legal authority).

Rest assured, like the defendant in this case, I made no threats, offered no bribes (does ice-cream count?) or in any way coerced these girls. Come to think of it, though, my good looks and brilliant wit can be intimidating. I'd better hand myself in to the Gardai now.:D

As you say, best not to comment when you don't know even basic things.

patnor1011

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.

Caquas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The criminal offence of coercion involves acting with a view to compel someone to do something with no lawful authority to compel them to do so....

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

acting with a view to compel someone to do something...

provided only that such action is done

wrongfully and without lawful authority

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?

His legal representation did a hell of a job considering the circumstances

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?

One eyed Jack

Caquas wrote: »

Again I ask, what was she coerced to do? It’s not enough to prove one element of an offence.

His barrister did say

Even with a guilty plea, that is an extraordinary example of defence Counsel doing the work of the Prosecution. But does that get him two years in jail?

The criminal offence of coercion involves acting with a view to compel someone to do something with no lawful authority to compel them to do so. In this particular case, the man tried to coax the child to accompany him into the woods. He acted without any lawful authority in attempting to do so.

It’s why when the case was heard in the District Court, he was remanded on bail subject to a number of conditions -

There was no objection to the accused being remanded on bail, but he must continue to adhere to stringent bail conditions.

The man is not allowed to access greenways or walkways in the Cork city area. He has also been ordered to stay away from the area in which the alleged offence occurred and from where the young girl resides.

He is forbidden from leaving the jurisdiction, has to sign daily at his local Garda station, provide his mobile phone number to Gardaí and stay away from the area where the complainant lives.

He has also been ordered not to approach any female or male under the age of 18 unknown to him.

Judge Kelleher has granted free legal aid in the case. A Book of Evidence has also been prepared.

His legal representation did a hell of a job considering the circumstances involving coercion of a child in an attempt to have them accompany the defendant into the woods, and the accused appeared to be offering the fact that they couldn’t find anyone who wanted to have sex with them as though this was somehow relevant to their defence!

The job of their legal representation as Officers of the Court isn’t just to represent their clients to the best of their ability, it is also to promote their clients best interests. Had the defendant still opted to plead not guilty at the Circuit Criminal Court, and put everyone through a trial and still been found guilty, they would have received a much lengthier custodial sentence. His legal representation did an admirable job in defending their client.

The only thing I can think of that this case has to do with the thread is whether or not to believe the adult who claimed it was all a misunderstanding, or the child who according to the Judge after reading her victim impact statement, he was of the opinion that she had gone through a truly frightening experience -

A victim impact statement was handed in to the judge. It was not read in open court.

Judge Sean O'Donnabhain said that the young girl had gone through a "truly frightening experience".

"This little girl was playing innocently when her innocence was taken from her. The plea is helpful and he co-operated and is remorseful. But this is a serious incident. A non-custodial sentence is not adequate.

"This girl was innocently playing in the middle in the day and what has occurred has had significant ongoing effects."

Judge O'Donnabhain jailed Mr Nordell for two years suspending the final year of the sentence on condition that he leave the jurisdiction upon his release and not return for a period of five years.

He directed that Nordell receive medical attention in prison after his barrister expressed concern for his welfare following his incarceration.

Man jailed after trying to coerce 11-year-old girl