Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

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

As far as I can make out everyone told the truth there as they perceived it. Unfortunately that perception was distorted by a lot of alcohol.

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.

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.

Not relevant. They got off and should have their costs reimbursed.

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

Really?

A Court or a jury in a criminal case cannot find you innocent; the choice they face is “guilty” or “not guilty”, and both Ibrahim Halawa and the Jobstown protesters were found “not guilty”.
That’s all a Court or a jury can do.
The question of innocence, from a legal perspective, is a different matter.

https://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent-in-criminal-law


I've never heard of anyone found innocent in Ireland.

EagererBeaver wrote:

Try and understand the law before pontificating about.

Can you point out a link to any court case in Ireland where the defendant was found innocent?


You can be found guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict or ruling called found innocent.

You can not be found innocent by a judge or jury. You can be found not guilty and then you have the presumption of innocence but you can not be found innocent.

I'm not saying that these guys aren't innocent but they were not found innocent in court. They were found not g

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

A solicitor made this claim to me during a case years ago . Both of us were prosecuted for assault against each other . I was first up judge dismissed the case against me no evidence at all. Then person who tried assault me was up. I was on stand where defence solicitor stated that I was not found innocent by the court. I kindly reminded her that my innocents stays until It is found to the contrary.

I guess the key point is: sexual events happened. It was reported as rape. The police and prosecuters office felt they had a case based on evidence gathered while investigating. The court case verdict was not guilty of rape.

However the judge did find there was enough evidence to justify taking the case. Hence the lads have to shoulder the burden of costs.

Which I think is very fair.

If it had been the case where absolutely nothing had happened and it was motivated by some personal agenda on behalf of accuser, I'd say it was a different story regarding costs for the accused. However in this case, it's an interpretation on real events whether it was rape or not.