Drunken man and woman commit lewd public acts. No violence, no coercion. The guy gets six years for sexual assault and she gets off scot free. Something badly wrong here.
Was she though?
The sebtencing occurs after his conviction before a jury. If he'd talked like that during the trial it would be a different matter.
As for the bouncers, all that's reported about them is they found them engaged in some horizontal action and immediately treated him like he was a criminal.
I don't know what's on tape and we'll never get to see that.
Her being named publicly fits in with my contention that this is all about reputation saving.
The attitude of the judge has meant he got a harsh sentence.
I'm starting to think the OP is either the convicted man or his close friend 🙄
It's a fair point about consent. Do we have a system that is biased toward the accuser?
Like if this guy called his solicitor that night, perhaps the advice would have been to make a complaint of sexual assault to the gardai against the victim.
He can say that he could not consent because he was intoxicated I suppose?
Do you know that this man did not have legal representation? I very much doubt it.
Also, his solicitor is not going to tell him to do something illegal is he? So, unless the man himself claimed to have been assaulted, then a solicitor isn't go to suggest that he make a false statement in order to cancel out an assault claim against him.
Was any testimony taken from her friends who were with her on the night?
Perhaps my point is being missed here. Should responsibility for non consensual sexual activity be based on which party reports the encounter to the police? I'm genuinely curious, what if both had accused each other?
I don't think it is illegal for him to report an assault. It isn't necessary for him to make a false statement. He was incapable of consent and involved in a sexual encounter, does there need to be more than that?
How do you know he was incapable of consent? He never suggested such a thing. In fact, he told Gardai it was consensual.
And in this case, I don't believe she made the complaint either, as far as I can see, the sober bouncers called Gardai.
It is illegal to make a complaint if assault if you have not been assaulted. Making a false statement is an offence.
that was said at the sentence hearing after he was already convicted. it had no bearing on his conviction. It was not said at his trial.
Will you get real.
Do you really think anyone, let alone a 28 year old illegal immigrant has the facility to just call up a lawyer for legal advice in the middle of the night ?
After further thought, I really don't like him carrying her to a secluded place. That probably is what cost him because if two people are engaging in sexual conduct in public and people are recording it then you would think that they are oblivious to it and both hammered drunk to be doing that. People recording it suggests it didn't appear to be non-consensual at that point although it's annoying that we don't have their testimony. The main thing is she didn't get up and walk with him. It could have been a consensual thing where they both noticed or she may have even noticed but him carrying her along with the reports of her being legless suggests that she wasn't able to walk. Maybe she was but thats the inference I get. Huge problem there with him carrying her away. So after thinking it through at this point I lean towards the conviction being right. It was nice to see the girl was articulate and seems to have made progress getting over the whole thing. She seems authentic in what shes saying and how she comes across.
Sex offender defenders, read this part of the article:
"Security staff from the nightclub who were concerned about the woman's level of intoxication followed and found Kudzievi laying on the woman whose trousers and underwear were pulled down.
The bouncers pulled Kudzievi away and he was arrested. He was initially certified unfit for interview due to his intoxication, though Justice Burns noted “he was quite capable of carrying her without a stumble or fall”.
The bouncers were the ones who spotted something was off, they went after him and they pulled him off her.
So the fools here who are suggesting that she was drunk and horny and regretted it can go and do one. He was arrested after the bouncers pulled him off her that night.
Think about this key piece of evidence before spouting your drivel looking for any excuse to defend him. He was caught and unanimously found guilty, in a case that is often very difficult to prove.
The Gardai ring one for him. Everyone is entitled to legal advise.
That might have been his best hope of a defence - that he was also so drunk he remembers nothing.
And if this was a case where two people woke up in bed, both saying they had no memories at all of the night before, getting a conviction would be next to impossible.
But he was recorded/witnessed carrying her off to another spot. Now, he could still make the argument that he remembers nothing, but that kind of physical coordination would obviously go against him.
Fair play to the bouncers.
No indeed they do not. Every arrested person is given their rights and handed a copy of those rights.
Everything is done right because if it is not, it threatens the whole case.
they didn't interview him until he sobered up.
The inference of spiking is completely unsubstantiated. Her claim that she cannot recollect what happened cannot be verified. She admits to getting loaded up before heading out and then hitting shots when she got to the place. She drank more than she could handle and lost control of her inhibitions. She gave no indication that she was in distress. Bouncers intervened on their own initiative. I don't see why she is any more of a loss than he is.
The second highlighted statement is not actually a statement of fact - it's your inference of the facts. That's what you think was the cause but you cannot tell that was the actual cause and you're betraying your own bias here by stating it the way.
If she was indeed performing oral sex on Kudzievi in public, wouldn't that suggest that she was somewhat aware of her actions?
If she wasn't interested in him, this wouldn't have happened to begin with, presumably?
Instead, she'd have resisted in some form.
That's not how it works in the real world.
That's exactly how it works in the real world.
And why do you think she was?
Well, I've no doubt that people do lose their memory the day after drinking; as has probably happened most of us at 18-21 years etc. But at the time, there is some degree of awareness or recognition of loss of inhibitions. That is true, too. Separating the boundary between the point where awareness / personal responsibility is lost is not an easy line to draw. Even if memory is forgotten the next day, that shouldn't be assumed to think that we are not responsible for our actions at the time; that there is some degree of awareness.
And so, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask that, at the time, was she aware of her actions? And, given that she allegedly performed oral sex on him in public, doesn't it suggest some degree of consent, even if only at that point in time?
Fair enough - the judge stated she hadn't imbibed much alcohol which shows an opposite but equal bias.
I asked why do you think she was giving oral sex? Did you see that reported somewhere?
Then the judge stated what the evidence showed.
She was given mouth swabs - what do you think the bystanders were filming?
Mouth swabs are taken in many instances.
I have no idea what those people were filming, but you seem to be very well up on exactly what happened, so where did you find that information?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)