Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

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.

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.

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.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?

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

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.

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

[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

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

BarryD2 wrote:

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.

I'd imagine the DPP thought they had a strong case when they changed the lads. Its when they get to court and the judge doesn't allow key things as evidence that you loose the case.

I agree that the jury returned the correct verdict as no two stories matched up. There was definitely reasonable doubt

Can they go after the PPSNI for costs? Or the accuser for defemation or similar.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Can they go after the PPSNI for costs? Or the accuser for defemation or similar.

She didn't defame them, she made an accusation to the police who then investigated and brought a trial to the courts,the papers then report them as claims,the never refer to it as fact and such no defamation occurs.

But in my opinion I would agree to a review of things of this nature being looked into and defendants having costs reimbursed after being found innocent or acquitted and them then providing evidence of the financial strain and hardship it has put them under. As I said this could happen to any joe soap and they could spend all their money defending themselves.

Innocent people have been put to prison and are only released after it's been proven otherwise and they then receive substantial pay outs,why isn't it the same for accused who waste their resources defending themselves?

It's interesting but I hope for more input from legal eagles on this site and their thoughts separate from the facts and particulars of this specific case

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I never said that he was guilty or anything of the sort. Gardai can't interview him till the girl makes a statement & she's terrified he'll come after her if she does make a statement.

They can, they’ve simply chosen not to yet as they are still gathering other evidence as part of the investigation.

The point I was making was that with social media famous people will be named & shamed /tried and convicted before they ever get to trial.

The court of public opinion is not an actual legal forum, as in this idea that they are named and shamed or tried and convicted are two completely separate concepts. There are various options for legal recourse open to everyone when they feel their right to their good name has been violated by another person. It just so happens that when people build their reputation to the point where they imagine they are invincible, they may often be hoisted upon their own petard. It’s one of the negative aspects of being infamous for any reason - it comes with an equally proportionate level of public scrutiny, and now even more so with the advent of social media, as Kevin Hart realised recently when his rising star status came to public attention, or dare I say it - Brett Kavanaugh, and who could forget Bill Clinton’s indiscretions which tarnished his reputation. Named and shamed - certainly. Tried and convicted of any wrongdoing without acknowledging their right to a fair trial? Certainly not.

I didn't say it was right, I was just pointing out a fact. Even with the protection defendants get in the south (&rightly so) to keep their identity hidden they will be named. I used the current one about the sport star as an example of them being named not as an example of guilt

I have a fundamental disagreement with defendants having the protection they do to remain anonymous here tbh. They have their identity protected only in certain circumstances, as there is no automatic right to anonymity either for the defendant or the complainant in any case -


Untangling the vexed question of anonymity in sex cases


I have no doubt there has been plenty of speculation and allegations made on social media about various high profile sports personalities, but none of that speculation has any legal basis by which any particular person is actually on trial, let alone that they have been convicted of anything. They maintain their good reputation and the presumption of innocence, as opposed to the idea that you were trying to float earlier that because someone isn’t found guilty, they aren’t innocent. They are, just as they were presumed innocent of any wrongdoing before the verdict of any jury was given in their trial, just as everyone in Irish society is presumed innocent in law until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

If someone were to think of making a complaint that their reputation has been tarnished unjustly, they would likely be well advised of the Streisand effect, or it’s equivalent in a more modern Irish context at least - #suemepaddy. Paddy Jackson was likely advised that he might well be inviting even more public scrutiny upon himself with his continuing efforts to avoid taking any responsibility for his actions that were already public knowledge.

It wouldn’t be worth pursuing members of the public when it would cost more in legal fees than he could ever possibly hope to recover. It was worth pursuing a case against another public figure who was more likely to be in a position to pay compensation, such as Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin -


Jackson to sue senator over remarks


That’s why media organisations are being particularly judicious In recent reports of these types of cases. They’ve decided that the risk of public backlash when trials collapse, combined with the possibility of being sued, isn’t worth the clickbait revenue.

One of the reasons the judge cited in her decision not to award costs was that there are no reference cases. Are there really no cases at all where the PPSNI brought a case against an accused and lost?

sexmag wrote:

I was always under the impression you always have the right to legal counsel while being interviewed so you don't perjur yourself or have false information extracted

You are thinking of in the US. In Ireland once arrested you can take calls from your solicitor & they can even visit you at the station but when interviewed it's just you and the Gardai in the interview room.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt there has been plenty of speculation and allegations made on social media about various high profile sports personalities, but none of that speculation has any legal basis by which any particular person is actually on trial, let alone that they have been convicted of anything. They maintain their good reputation and the presumption of innocence, as opposed to the idea that you were trying to float earlier that because someone isn’t found guilty, they aren’t innocent. They are, just as they were presumed innocent of any wrongdoing before the verdict of any jury was given in their trial, just as everyone in Irish society is presumed innocent in law until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

I never tried to "float" this idea at all. A poster claimed that they were found innocent. This is false. They were acquitted with the presumption of innocence. They are two totally different things. The judge nor the jury "found them innocent". It's ridiculous to suggest they did. I never suggested that they wern't innocent. In fact I said several times that in this case it's very likely that both sides were telling the truth. I also said twice that she has as much right to the presumption of innocence as the lads. Nothing was proven one way or another in that court. Everyone left the court with the presumption. I can't see how you think I'm trying to suggest that the lads are guilty nor can I understand why you'd make out that I am saying these things when I'm not



Lets be very clear here. I'm saying that the jury made the right decision. Everyone contradicted each other. As a result there was more than reasonable doubt.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of your speculative opinion, on the part I’ve highlighted in bold, that hasn’t been the case since 2014. See page 20 (or page 23 of the PDF) of the Law Society Gazette below -

Law Society Gazette, July 2016 issue


Since 2014, solicitors have been permitted to attend garda interviews with suspects. Billy Keane looks at how this came about, and what happens next, in the July 2016 Gazette.

On 6 March 2014, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the joined cases of DPP v Gormley and DPP v White. The court found that a suspect’s right not to self-incriminate incorporates an entitlement to legal advice in advance of mandatory questioning of a suspect in custody, and that the constitutional right to a trial in due course of law encompasses a right to have early access to a lawyer after arrest.

The impact of this was felt just over two months later – on 7 May 2014 – when the Garda Síochána began allowing solicitors to attend interviews with suspects. This came about after the DPP advised the Garda Commissioner that, where a request is made by a suspect who is detained in a garda station to have his solicitor present for interview, the request should be acceded to.

Once solicitors began attending interviews, the question arose as to what the role of the solicitor in the interview should be. The Garda Síochána published its own ‘Code of Practice on Access to a Solicitor by Persons in Garda Custody’, while the Law Society has also published its ‘Guidance for Solicitors Providing Legal Services in Garda Stations’.

Barrister Billy Keane examines the legal position of solicitors providing guidance in garda interviews in detail. He argues that legislation will be required to regulate the right of access to legal advice before questioning, and to establish a right for suspects to have their solicitor present at interview. You can read the full article in the July Gazette.


Sit down, pull up a chair – solicitors in garda interviews, Lawsociety.ie

Why are you being so combative? "Whatever about the rest of your speculative opinion"

There's nothing speculative about my statements. I wasn't aware that the law had changed in the last few years. I was wrong. My mistake. Well everyone knows that I haven't been arrested in the last 4 years now

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why are you being so combative? "Whatever about the rest of your speculative opinion"

There's nothing speculative about my statements. I wasn't aware that the law had changed in the last few years. I was wrong. My mistake. Well everyone knows that I haven't been arrested in the last 4 years now

The rest of your post that I didn’t highlight, was speculation based entirely upon the fact you weren’t aware that when a person is arrested, they are permitted to have their own legal representation present during interviews with Gardaí. I’m not being at all combative, I’m pointing out that you’re making statements based upon a number of incorrect assumptions about Garda investigations.

I would at least do some basic investigation of my own and fact checking before making such statements, especially when there is so much propaganda and misleading information that surrounds legal proceedings and Irish law in relation to sexual offences and criminal trial proceedings, as has been evidenced by a number of recent cases and how they have been reported on in Irish media.