Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

Options
  • 14-12-2018 7:13pm
    #1
    bcklschaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭


    Is this a very dangerous precedent?

    Under normal circumstances if somebody accuses you of a crime and cannot back it up with evidence. They have defamed you.

    Not alone should you get your costs, but substantial compensation as well. Especially if the charges have had a large financial affect on you.

    The judge cited "special facts and circumstances". Exactly what were they ????

    From what I can see it was the **** storm whipped up by rabid feminists, foaming at the mouth that a judge and jury could rule against a woman. How dare they !!!!

    What the judge is effectively saying is you guys are innocent ....but not totally innoncent....because after all ye are male....and the alleged victim was female.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gimli2112
    Registered Users Posts: 13,407 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    I'm not sure that's true maybe more so in a civil case but even then it's up to the court. If the plaintiff can't afford it there's no point awarding the costs against them. One thing you can be sure of is the legals always get paid.


  • Options
    #3
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    While they were found innocent of the charge, their disrespect of the plaintiff did not endear them to the vast majority of people.


  • Options
    #4
    bcklschaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    While they were found innocent of the charge, their disrespect of the plaintiff did not endear them to the vast majority of people.

    Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. Legally that should be irrelevant. But clearly the judge has been swayed by public opinion. Soo much for the Judge being impartial (the image of blind folded woman with a weighing scale) weighing up the evidence....and just the evidence.


  • Options
    #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    They chose their legal team, so they should pay.


  • Options
    #6
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,904 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    bcklschaps wrote:
    What the judge is effectively saying is you guys are innocent ....but not totally innoncent.


    You need to understand that with a rape trial where both parties admit sex took place it becomes a concent trial. It's very possible that the jury were 100 percent certain that the girl didn't give consent & at the same time have reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of this.

    It is totally wrong to assume that the girl was lying in a consent case even if the defendant is aquited. If the girl was lying then the DPP can charge her.

    It's entirely possible in the case in the North that the girl & the defendants were telling the truth. Acquittal doesn't mean that girl is guilty. The judge who decided on the costs today is the same judge from the trial. This judge heard all of the evidence & is the correct person to make this decision.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Youre not automatically entitled to your costs after a criminal trial.


  • Options
    #8
    bcklschaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They chose their legal team, so they should pay.

    True, but if you win your case you are entitled to your legal costs (or at least a percentage of).

    I think this is sexism...pure and simple.

    This simply would not happen if the genders were reversed.


  • Options
    #9
    bcklschaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You need to understand that with a rape trial where both parties admit sex took place it becomes a concent trial. It's very possible that the jury were 100 percent certain that the girl didn't give consent & at the same time have reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of this.

    It is totally wrong to assume that the girl was lying in a consent case even if the defendant is aquited. If the girl was lying then the DPP can charge her.

    It's entirely possible in the case in the North that the girl & the defendants were telling the truth. Acquittal doesn't mean that girl is guilty. The judge who decided on the costs today is the same judge from the trial. This judge heard all of the evidence & is the correct person to make this decision.

    If someone claims you raped them and destroys your reputation and career. A jury finds that you didn't. But it cost you half a million to fight the case. I think you should get your money back (or at least a chunk of it).


  • Options
    #10
    Marty Bird
    Registered Users Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭Marty Bird


    I find it strange that one of the reasons given to recoup costs was that he needed to pay back his retried father. When asked for proof of this he declined. Why?


  • Options
    #11
    TCM
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭TCM


    bcklschaps wrote:
    If someone claims you raped them and destroys your reputation and career. A jury finds that you didn't. But it cost you half a million to fight the case. I think you should get your money back (or at least a chunk of it).

    Well then, the good justice didn't agree with you. They destroyed their own reputations. Let them suck it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator: Lots of reasons for this issue to be discussed but not seeing much in the way of legal discussion so far.

    Can we start engaging with the legal principles in play? Further off topic posts (for the forum) will be dealt with qua breach of charter.


  • Options
    #13
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,904 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Garibaldi? wrote:
    While they were found innocent of the charge, their disrespect of the plaintiff did not endear them to the vast majority of people.

    You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?

    They were aquited. The jury had reasonable doubt.

    bcklschaps wrote:
    If someone claims you raped them and destroys your reputation and career. A jury finds that you didn't. But it cost you half a million to fight the case. I think you should get your money back (or at least a chunk of it).

    You assume that she gave consent. This was NOT proven in court. It was NOT proven in court that any of her story was made up. The DPP can charge her if it's proven in court that she lied. The outcome of the case was that nothing at all was proved one way or the other. There was reasonable doubt.

    She is entitled to the assumption of innocence as much as the defendants.


  • Options
    #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bcklschaps wrote: »
    True, but if you win your case you are entitled to your legal costs (or at least a percentage of).

    I think this is sexism...pure and simple.

    This simply would not happen if the genders were reversed.

    It’s got nothing to do with the actual case. They chose their legal teams. One of them ran out of money and was granted free legal aid. There’s no precedent for reimbursement.


  • Options
    #15
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    a) the jury did not find that they didn't rape her. They found that the prosecution failed to prove that they did. Thus, the two of them are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

    b) costs are not automatically awarded in the case of an acquittal.

    You should try and understand some of the legal details before you start mouthing off about the lads being victims of sexism.


  • Options
    #16
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It's entirely possible in the case in the North that the girl & the defendants were telling the truth. Acquittal doesn't mean that girl is guilty. The judge who decided on the costs today is the same judge from the trial. This judge heard all of the evidence & is the correct person to make this decision.

    This is entirely possible - in which case the agencies and state who decided to prosecute the case should be accountable for their costs?

    From the outset it was clear that if these lads were just ordinary blokes, that a case would have been unlikely. You'd have to suspect that the main reason this case went to the PSNI and then the courts was because of their public profile. A means by which a cause célèbre could be created and lot's of publicity given to issues surrounding consent etc. It can reasonably be asked why they should bear all the extra costs, financial & otherwise just because of their high public profiles.


  • Options
    #17
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?

    Yes but the point is that should be irrelevant in respect of costs.


  • Options
    #18
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,904 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    AllForIt wrote:
    Yes but the point is that should be irrelevant in respect of costs.


    What is relevant is that there is no automatic right to recover costs.


  • Options
    #19
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,904 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    BarryD2 wrote:
    From the outset it was clear that if these lads were just ordinary blokes, that a case would have been unlikely. You'd have to suspect that the main reason this case went to the PSNI and then the courts was because of their public profile. A means by which a cause célèbre could be created and lot's of publicity given to issues surrounding consent etc. It can reasonably be asked why they should bear all the extra costs, financial & otherwise just because of their high public profiles.


    Funny I didn't see that at all. I felt it went to court because the DPP felt they had a strong case.

    UK law allows them to be named during the trial. This needs to be changed but technology is so advanced that they will never hide the identity of the accused if they are famous. The well known Irish sports mans identity is already all over the Internet and he hasn't even been questioned yet let alone charged.


  • Options
    #20
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There’s no precedent for reimbursement.

    There are many precedents for costs where there has been no legal aid. If the prosecution case is not allowed to go to the jury it is likely that there will be costs allowed.


  • Options
    #21
    sexmag
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    What is relevant is that there is no automatic right to recover costs.

    This is true but after this high profile case I would agree it should be looked at.

    Regardless of their means,they were put on trial and needed to provide a legal team to defend them at their own cost,they were acquitted and as such still presumed innocent, they are now out of pocket (it's entirely possible someone could have used all their savings to defend themselves) and they are now without any financial support.

    Any joe soap going through the same thing could be financially drained and recoup of costs if found innocent or acquitted should become standard in my opinion. I say that in all such instances and not just to particulars of that case


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sexmag wrote: »
    This is true but after this high profile case I would agree it should be looked at.

    Regardless of their means,they were put on trial and needed to provide a legal team to defend them at their own cost,they were acquitted and as such still presumed innocent, they are now out of pocket (it's entirely possible someone could have used all their savings to defend themselves) and they are now without any financial support.

    Any joe soap going through the same thing could be financially drained and recoup of costs if found innocent or acquitted should become standard in my opinion. I say that in all such instances and not just to particulars of that case

    They were asked for proof that their financial situation was adversely affected and they failed to provide evidence of this.


  • Options
    #23
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    As far as I know you can get free legal aid if your income is below a certain figure. They must not have fulfilled that condition.


  • Options
    #24
    KevinCavan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 612 ✭✭✭KevinCavan


    Jackson and Olding must feel raped that they didn’t get their money back.

    Moderator: User was banned for this comment.


  • Options
    #25
    sexmag
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They were asked for proof that their financial situation was adversely affected and they failed to provide evidence of this.

    Actually no

    "The court heard Mr Jackson paid his mortgage off and had savings but had to draw on his mortgage and borrow money from his father's retirement money to fund his defence.

    In her ruling, Judge Smyth said Mr Jackson's father "was not required to contribute his retirement monies".

    The Judge also revealed: "Mr Jackson has declined the opportunity to provide evidence regarding his current financial situation, including the extent to which he has repaid the debt to his father."

    Jackson was asked to provide his current financial situation and how much he paid his father back,he declined. For all we know he's making pitents and hasn't paid his father a penny.

    However that was a throw away at the end, the judge said there was no similar case she could draw on to compare if she should or shouldn't award the costs

    my comment however was referring to the broader scope of such cases and not particularly the particulars of this one


  • Options
    #26
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?
    I know this post came directly after my above warning so I am not taking issue with the lack of legal principles but on the other hand, for fairness, I have to point out a few things.

    There is a presumption of innocence in this country and in Northern Ireland. That means you are innocent until proven guilty. As a matter of simple logic and law, if you are not PROVEN to be guilty, then you are INNOCENT, under that principle.

    They were aquited. The jury had reasonable doubt.
    This equates to them being innocent as per the simple logical expression above.
    She is entitled to the assumption of innocence as much as the defendants.

    Look, no one disputes that this was a difficult trial for everyone. We all went through a lot to try to parse the reality of that case. It was horrible.

    But having said that, from a legal perspective, the situation is that the men who were accused after now regarded as innocent in the eyes of the law and the State.

    The complainant has had no legal judgment made of her. She is, thereby, innocent.

    From a societal perspective, the above isn't good enough maybe. There should be more of this and less of that to make the system work. The system is imperfect.

    Yeah, maybe, but until we have a system that's better, we'll love with the one we've had for centuries that was devised to be and has been, as far as we know, the fairest imperfect system going.


  • Options
    #27
    bcklschaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    This is entirely possible - in which case the agencies and state who decided to prosecute the case should be accountable for their costs?

    From the outset it was clear that if these lads were just ordinary blokes, that a case would have been unlikely. You'd have to suspect that the main reason this case went to the PSNI and then the courts was because of their public profile. A means by which a cause célèbre could be created and lot's of publicity given to issues surrounding consent etc. It can reasonably be asked why they should bear all the extra costs, financial & otherwise just because of their high public profiles.

    100% correct. The PSNI even leaked the contents of the text messages to the press to whip up public outtrage. Very cynical, the state decided to prosecute and failed.....but managed to tarnish the guys reputation's forever.... The defendents are entitled to the money back which they paid to defend themselves....and much more IMHO


  • Options
    #28
    unattendedbag
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭unattendedbag


    They all had a case to answer and needed to defend the accusation. The cps had enough to bring the case to court and felt that they had enough to get a conviction. Otherwise the judge would have dismissed the whole thing after the prosecution had presented their case. It would still have run the same course even if it was three ordinary lads.

    Their legal teams are what saved them in the end and was money well spent. I'm sure they didn't come cheap but that should have been clear from the outset.


  • Options
    #29
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Funny I didn't see that at all. I felt it went to court because the DPP felt they had a strong case.

    No wish to rehash the trial but I'd have thought it was apparent from even the opening statements that a conviction was very unlikely. Too many conflicting accounts by parties involved and witnesses, too much drink taken, issues of consent and intent by all parties. It was just a complete mess.

    If this had happened at an ordinary party with ordinary lads and girls involved, would the case have been prosecuted???


  • Options
    #30
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    They are in a high socio-economic group-hence no free legal aid. Not sure of how stringent the means test is but im fairly sure they would be above it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    fatherted1969
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭fatherted1969


    Thought it was strange myself too, innocent until proven guilty but they both are out of pocket to prove their innocence. Could they claim off the accused to reimburse costs ?

    My opinion on the trial was vastly different to the outcome btw


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement