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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
False rape accusation...who would you believe?
Comments
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Ok I’m glad we cleared that one up, I was kinda confused as to what you meant there, I‘d have said the same of anything which could prejudice the jury against the defendant, violating their right to a fair trial (I’ll come back to that one in a minute).
I disagree with that, because it stops what IMO are the most salient facts being reported, and what is reported are the salacious details in the national tabloid rags that only Margareet is interested in reading about. One of the main points of the report (and not the whole point) is that there is a stigma attached to being accused of committing a criminal offence such as rape and/or sexual assault, and anonymity doesn’t deal with that stigma, it literally brushes it under the carpet and perpetuates it.
Within their communities as was the case with Sil Fox, the accusation led to the loss of income and damage to his reputation within the community. On being found not guilty of any wrongdoing, it is a public acknowledgement that he has done no wrong, thereby restoring his reputation. If defendants were granted anonymity then the chances of their reputation being publicly restored are lessened by the fact that the Margareets in the community will be able to continue to suggest there was no smoke without fire. Public acknowledgement of the fact that Sil Fox maintains his good reputation tends to put a dent in Margareets motivation to spread gossip.
I said I’d come back to the point about the defendants right to a fair trial - one of the reasons I can’t see many of the recommendations in this report being implemented, apart from the idea of there being insufficient resources and funding or the fact that it requires changes in legislation or the fact that it means an impingement upon Judges discretion, apart from aaaaalll that - is simply the fact that many of the recommendations could prejudice the defendants right to a fair trial, and could indeed be argued in pre-trial hearings as having the potential to prejudice a jury and therefore violate a a defendants right to a fair trial.
I think we are in agreement. Granting anonymity still allows cases to be reported, just nothing that identifies. I'm at a loss a little (have only skimmed the report) but we offer anonymity to the accused for serious sex crimes. For instance you won't see a well known personality named in a rape trial unless convicted.
My one concern about offering accusers, pre trial legal advice is that they would be coached making it difficult to tell if someone is telling the truth or not..0 -
Over 20 years actually. And not nearly out of my depth, thanks for your concern!
Extremely hard but rewarding work if say.
In what way does it assist though being classified as a victim. As long as you have the benefits and all of the assistance, why argue for a word.
I'm benign either side BTW..0 -
joeguevara wrote: »Extremely hard but rewarding work if say.
In what way does it assist though being classified as a victim. As long as you have the benefits and all of the assistance, why argue for a word.
I'm benign either side BTW..
It's not that I want to argue over a word, it just is the way it is.
Like I said, anyone who is the victim of any crime, is a victim.
During an investigation into that crime, it may come to light that a crime wasn't committed. In that case, the person is obviously not a victim, in fact, if they have deliberately made a false report, then they are actually an offender.
For example, you ring AGS, & report your house has been broken into, do you expect the gardai to question you as if it's a lie?
Or, do you expect them to treat you like a victim?
As I said, it may come to light that your house wasn't broken into, in those cases, things change.
If you do not treat people as victims, & instead treat them with suspicion, then it won't be long until you lose the support of the community.0 -
jimwallace197 wrote: »With the type of attitude you have, I hope you are not involved in dealing with any type of victim or any type of crime. Completely out of your depth.
How is the attitude that people who claim to have been a victim of crime are treated as though they have been the victim of a crime, an indication that someone is out of their depth? An investigation is required when someone makes a complaint to establish whether or not a criminal offence has occurred, and to determine who is responsible for committing said offence.
It’s definitely not as simple as someone claiming they are a victim and the person they are accusing is automatically guilty of committing a criminal offence. An investigation will determine whether a crime has taken place, and who is responsible. Sexual offences are considered crimes committed against the community, not against the individual, even though an individual or individuals may be regarded as the victim or victims of crime.0 -
Over 20 years actually. And not nearly out of my depth, thanks for your concern!
Its extremely concerning if someone with your attitude has been working in this line of work for over 20 years.
Its not surprising really that false rape accusations are starting to rise when people like yourself are involved in the process.
You use the comparison of a house break in as a reason to believe the victim. Rape is one of the if not the most heinous crimes to be accused and charged of, its not a burglary. And alot of the time if there is a serious crime like this, the least the ags can do is properly investigate all parties including the person making the accusation before attempting to ruin someones life.
This is not losing the confidence of the community, its reinstating because certainly these days, its at an all time low.0 -
jimwallace197 wrote: »Its extremely concerning if someone with your attitude has been working in this line of work for over 20 years.
Its not surprising really that false rape accusations are starting to rise when people like yourself are involved in the process.
You use the comparison of a house break in as a reason to believe the victim. Rape is one of the if not the most heinous crimes to be accused and charged of, its not a burglary. And alot of the time if there is a serious crime like this, the least the ags can do is properly investigate all parties including the person making the accusation before attempting to ruin someones life.
This is not losing the confidence of the community, its reinstating because certainly these days, its at an all time low.
Perhaps you don't understand. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect & dignity. Everyone.
Everyone who reports a crime as a victim or everyone who has been accused of committing a crime.
You clearly have no idea how investigations work.
In fact, I think this post must be a troll post because you cannot believe that AGS & the DPP are going around 'attempting to ruin someone's life ' without investigation! You know that doesn't happen.0 -
Perhaps you don't understand. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect & dignity. Everyone.
Everyone who reports a crime as a victim or everyone who has been accused of committing a crime.
You clearly have no idea how investigations work.
In fact, I think this post must be a troll post because you cannot believe that AGS & the DPP are going around 'attempting to ruin someone's life ' without investigation! You know that doesn't happen.
Oh really, so what was the sil fox case about so when there was obvious cctv evidence contradicting this witches claims? That man had his reputation destroyed and had to wait around months before being exonorated, probably nearly killing him in the process. Disgraceful, I know exactly whats happening so cut your bull****0 -
joeguevara wrote: »I think we are in agreement. Granting anonymity still allows cases to be reported, just nothing that identifies. I'm at a loss a little (have only skimmed the report) but we offer anonymity to the accused for serious sex crimes. For instance you won't see a well known personality named in a rape trial unless convicted.
I dunno about that. Jump to Chapter 4 in the report which deals with Anonymity and specifically Section 17 which makes the point that a trial judge is not entitled to impose a restriction on the reporting of an accused persons name solely in order to protect that persons right to privacy. It goes on to refer to an imperative specified in Article 34.1 of the Irish Constitution which requires that, save in such special and limited circumstances as may be prescribed by law, justice shall be administered in public.
This is the point I’m coming from that in order to address the stigma surrounding accusations of a sexual nature, that seeing justice being done in public increases public confidence that should they ever be accused of committing a crime of a sexual nature, it takes the sting out of the stigma to have it publicly acknowledged that they are not guilty of committing an offence of which they were accused.
It actually helps people’s understanding of the judicial system, as opposed to feeling immediately ashamed at the mere accusation of a criminal offence of a sexual nature. Essentially it puts any liability for the accusation back on the person making the accusation, as opposed to the person they are accusing having to defend themselves.
Essentially, the accused (and indeed the public) are less likely to have to endure this sort of a reaction in public -
Irish outcry over teenager's underwear used in rape trialjoeguevara wrote: »My one concern about offering accusers, pre trial legal advice is that they would be coached making it difficult to tell if someone is telling the truth or not..
The Judge would still retain discretion in giving directions to the jury about that sort of behaviour -
The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old Ana Kriégel has told the jurors they could rely on lies alleged to have been told by the boys as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established there was no other innocent explanation.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott was continuing his summing up of the law and the evidence in the case.
Judge tells jury to examine all aspects of Kriégel case
One of the recommendations being that Judges need to be ‘educated’. I can’t see that one flying myself tbh, as it completely ignores the fact that Judges have to have discretion in order to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial and there is no opportunity for a conviction being overturned on appeal.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I dunno about that. Jump to Chapter 4 in the report which deals with Anonymity and specifically Section 17 which makes the point that a trial judge is not entitled to impose a restriction on the reporting of an accused persons name solely in order to protect that persons right to privacy. It goes on to refer to an imperative specified in Article 34.1 of the Irish Constitution which requires that, save in such special and limited circumstances as may be prescribed by law, justice shall be administered in public.
This is the point I’m coming from that in order to address the stigma surrounding accusations of a sexual nature, that seeing justice being done in public increases public confidence that should they ever be accused of committing a crime of a sexual nature, it takes the sting out of the stigma to have it publicly acknowledged that they are not guilty of committing an offence of which they were accused.
It actually helps people’s understanding of the judicial system, as opposed to feeling immediately ashamed at the mere accusation of a criminal offence of a sexual nature. Essentially it puts any liability for the accusation back on the person making the accusation, as opposed to the person they are accusing having to defend themselves.
Essentially, the accused (and indeed the public) are less likely to have to endure this sort of a reaction in public -
Irish outcry over teenager's underwear used in rape trial
The Judge would still retain discretion in giving directions to the jury about that sort of behaviour -
The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old Ana Kriégel has told the jurors they could rely on lies alleged to have been told by the boys as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established there was no other innocent explanation.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott was continuing his summing up of the law and the evidence in the case.
Judge tells jury to examine all aspects of Kriégel case
One of the recommendations being that Judges need to be ‘educated’. I can’t see that one flying myself tbh, as it completely ignores the fact that Judges have to have discretion in order to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial and there is no opportunity for a conviction being overturned on appeal.
Can you name one person in Ireland who was found not guilty in a rape case who didn’t consensually asked to be named....by Ireland I’m not talking Northern Ireland.
I’m at a loss at what you mean about people bring named takes the stigma out of being accused of sexual assault. As someone who practiced in criminal law, with some of these cases, a person doesn’t read back on previous cases and say, actually it’s not too bad being accused of rape and random strangers knowing about it. Similarly, the death penalty is not someone thinks about before they actually murder someone.
I can see why you have come to your hypothesis but from a practical perspective it is inherently flawed and that is no disrespect.0 -
joeguevara wrote: »Can you name one person in Ireland who was found not guilty in a rape case who didn’t consensually asked to be named....by Ireland I’m not talking Northern Ireland.
I’m at a loss at what you mean about people bring named takes the stigma out of being accused of sexual assault. As someone who practiced in criminal law, with some of these cases, a person doesn’t read back on previous cases and say, actually it’s not too bad being accused of rape and random strangers knowing about it. Similarly, the death penalty is not someone thinks about before they actually murder someone.
I can see why you have come to your hypothesis but from a practical perspective it is inherently flawed and that is no disrespect.
Nope, I can’t think of a single person. That’s not really the point though. My point is that unless in exceptional circumstances, such as in order to protect the identity of the victim, it isn’t necessary to impose reporting restrictions on the identity of the defendant or defendants in any case because all it does is perpetuates the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence.
I can’t name the person accused in the example used by Ruth Coppinger, but the local Margareets with a penchant for gossip will certainly be able to name him, whereas public acknowledgement of the upholding of a persons right to their reputation would make it that much more difficult for anyone choosing to spread gossip or to try and undermine the judgement of the Courts. Can’t easily do that if the person remains publicly unidentifiable.
I don’t take it as any disrespect but my perspective is based upon the administration of justice being visible to the public so that the public have a greater understanding of the law and judicial procedures and so on, so that they don’t form misguided beliefs about the law and their rights either as victims of crime, or as people who are accused of committing a crime.
From a practical perspective it means that everyone in society has a better idea of their rights and are less likely to imagine that justice is unlikely to be administered, regardless of the opinions of the Margareets in the community.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Nope, I can’t think of a single person. That’s not really the point though. My point is that unless in exceptional circumstances, such as in order to protect the identity of the victim, it isn’t necessary to impose reporting restrictions on the identity of the defendant or defendants in any case because all it does is perpetuates the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence.
I can’t name the person accused in the example used by Ruth Coppinger, but the local Margareets with a penchant for gossip will certainly be able to name him, whereas public acknowledgement of the upholding of a persons right to their reputation would make it that much more difficult for anyone choosing to spread gossip or to try and undermine the judgement of the Courts. Can’t easily do that if the person remains publicly unidentifiable.
I don’t take it as any disrespect but my perspective is based upon the administration of justice being visible to the public so that the public have a greater understanding of the law and judicial procedures and so on, so that they don’t form misguided beliefs about the law and their rights either as victims of crime, or as people who are accused of committing a crime.
From a practical perspective it means that everyone in society has a better idea of their rights and are less likely to imagine that justice is unlikely to be administered, regardless of the opinions of the Margareets in the community.
Ok, I’m presuming the Coppinger case you are talking about is the ‘thong’ case where the accused was acquitted. He has never been publicly named and I will explain why.
Ireland, as far as I’m aware is the only common law jurisdiction where the identity of an accused in a rape case is fully protected unless convicted, and only then if the victim allows it or its for the common good. I think you’re argument is strong but I’m not sure if you are aware of this protection.0 -
joeguevara wrote: »Ok, I’m presuming the Coppinger case you are talking about is the ‘thong’ case where the accused was acquitted. He has never been publicly named and I will explain why.
Ireland, as far as I’m aware is the only common law jurisdiction where the identity of an accused in a rape case is fully protected unless convicted, and only then if the victim allows it or its for the common good. I think you’re argument is strong but I’m not sure if you are aware of this protection.
I’m aware of the fact that Ireland is something of an anomaly in this regard, and I’m aware that’s why the defendant wasn’t publicly named. In the report the recommendation is that this protection is extended to all persons accused in sexual offences cases in order to protect people from the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence, but IMO all that’s likely to do is have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect.
There’s already a stigma attached to being accused of rape, so the proposed solution is to extend anonymity to defendants in those cases. However the effect of that is that the same stigma being attached to being accused of sexual assault. It won’t do anything to reduce the stigma attached to being accused of committing rape. It does nothing to vindicate a persons right to their good name if it isn’t publicly acknowledged that they are innocent. Kinda undermines the fundamental purpose of a persons right to their good name IMO by making it difficult for them to restore their good name and leaves them with the choice to go public themselves anyway, or live with the stigma and the rumours and suspicion.
I don’t see that as justice being administered tbh.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I’m aware of the fact that Ireland is something of an anomaly in this regard, and I’m aware that’s why the defendant wasn’t publicly named. In the report the recommendation is that this protection is extended to all persons accused in sexual offences cases in order to protect people from the stigma of being accused of committing a sexual offence, but IMO all that’s likely to do is have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect.
There’s already a stigma attached to being accused of rape, so the proposed solution is to extend the effect of that stigma to being accused of sexual assault. It won’t do anything to reduce the stigma attached to being accused of committing rape. It does nothing to vindicate a persons right to their good name if it isn’t publicly acknowledged that they are innocent. Kinda undermines the fundamental purpose of a persons right to their good name IMO by making it difficult for them to restore their good name and leaves them with the choice to go public themselves anyway, or live with the stigma and the rumours and suspicion.
I don’t see that as justice being administered tbh.
Ok, I have read your argument about the definition of justice not only being done but seen to be done, and you come across as a reasonable, articulate and knowledgeable person and actually a delight to be engaged in a conversation with.
I’m going to ask you one question. What benefit to society was there with Mr. Sil Fox being publicly named before and during his trial as opposed to mr x.0 -
joeguevara wrote: »Ok, I have read your argument about the definition of justice not only being done but seen to be done, and you come across as a reasonable, articulate and knowledgeable person and actually a delight to be engaged in a conversation with.
I’m going to ask you one question. What benefit to society was there with Mr. Sil Fox being publicly named before and during his trial as opposed to mr x.
For one thing I suppose we were all spared the indignity of Ruth Coppinger waving her smalls about in the Dáil again :pac:
But seriously, being publicly named meant that justice was seen to be done and that his right to his good name was upheld and vindicated by the Courts decision in the case, whereas in the case of Mr. x, there was no public vindication, and his reputation within the community remains sullied by the accusation.
People who knew of the original accusation will also know of the verdict, but will be far less likely to focus on the verdict, leaving the accusation open to being perpetuated. The only legal recourse left open to the accused is to publicly identify themselves in order to restore their good name and vindicate their right themselves. That can be incredibly expensive in any case -
Court overturns damages awarded during High Court sex abuse case and calls for rehearing of evidence0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »For one thing I suppose we were all spared the indignity of Ruth Coppinger waving her smalls about in the Dáil again :pac:
But seriously, being publicly named meant that justice was seen to be done and that his right to his good name was upheld and vindicated by the Courts decision in the case, whereas in the case of Mr. x, there was no public vindication, and his reputation within the community remains sullied by the accusation.
People who knew of the original accusation will also know of the verdict, but will be far less likely to focus on the verdict, leaving the accusation open to being perpetuated. The only legal recourse left open to the accused is to publicly identify themselves in order to restore their good name and vindicate their right themselves. That can be incredibly expensive in any case -
Court overturns damages awarded during High Court sex abuse case and calls for rehearing of evidence
See that is where there you are wrong. That poor man has had his life ruined and family ripped apart. I don’t think you have any idea how damaging it is. If you don’t agree, fair enough and I have no more to say on the subject.0 -
joeguevara wrote: »See that is where there you are wrong. That poor man has had his life ruined and family ripped apart. I don’t think you have any idea how damaging it is. If you don’t agree, fair enough and I have no more to say on the subject.
I do, and it’s precisely because of my own experience and the experiences of others that I argue that anonymity only perpetuates the stigma rather than reduces it. That’s why I’m not solely focused on the outcomes of one case for one individual, but rather I’m focused on what anonymity means for the perception of justice by society as a whole. That way people don’t get the wrong idea about the purpose of the judicial system.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I do, and it’s precisely because of my own experience and the experiences of others that I argue that anonymity only perpetuates the stigma rather than reduces it. That’s why I’m not solely focused on the outcomes of one case for one individual, but rather I’m focused on what anonymity means for the perception of justice by society as a whole. That way people don’t get the wrong idea about the purpose of the judicial system.
That will never trump the devastation that someone like mr fox feels.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/months-of-hell-comedian-sil-fox-cleared-of-sex-assault-in-bar-1.4263855
Again, naming a person in a case like this gives no further insight about the purpose of the legal system.0 -
Anyway I respect your opinion. You discussed it well and kept emotions out to a large degree. I don’t really have anything else to add.0
-
joeguevara wrote: »That will never trump the devastation that someone like mr fox feels.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/months-of-hell-comedian-sil-fox-cleared-of-sex-assault-in-bar-1.4263855
Again, naming a person in a case like this gives no further insight about the purpose of the legal system.
I’m not comparing circumstances though, let alone suggesting that they can be compared. Of course individuals experiences will vary depending upon their circumstances, but what we’re discussing here is a matter of law, not the outcomes of individual cases. I’ve already acknowledged that anonymity could be afforded to the defendants in any case at the Judges discretion if it were deemed necessary or appropriate.
What I meant by suggesting that anonymity should not be a prerequisite right is that it means that the general public have a better understanding of these types of cases and their rights whether they are either the victim or the accused, and as has been demonstrated in cases where the victim goes public, it reduces the stigma of being a victim, and in cases where the accused is named publicly, their good name is vindicated and they receive overwhelming public support.
The stigma persists when people fill in the blanks in media reports with their own narrative.
EDIT: An old article now (2014), but I remembered linking to it before as a good explainer of anonymity with regards to sexual offences cases in Irish law -
Untangling the vexed question of anonymity in sex cases
Also an interesting article which I happened across while searching for the article above -
Sex cases most likely to be appealed but least likely to succeed
History of anonymity for defendants in the UK, presenting both arguments for and against the idea in the UK -
Anonymity for defendants in rape cases0 -
Advertisement
-
Prompted by a question raised in another thread, I’d been racking my brains to think of a case where the person convicted appealed the severity of their sentence to the Court of Appeal and had their sentence increased. Couldn’t think of an example, but, I did come across this case which I thought was interesting in a thread which raises the question about who would anyone believe in these types of cases.
In this case an appeal against the leniency of the sentence was made by the DPP -
Court of Appeal: Man convicted of raping his wife has sentence increased
A man who was found guilty of raping his wife has had his custodial sentence increased from three years to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in the Court of Appeal.
Finding that the sentencing judge had not adequately assessed the gravity of the offending conduct, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the headline sentence was a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence which amounted to an error in principle.
...
At the sentencing hearing, TS handed a letter to the Court in which he apologised to his wife and family, and accepted that the jury had come to the right decision in finding him guilty. A letter was also submitted from the victim in which she asked the court her accept her husband’s apology and pleaded for clemency. The complainant detailed the struggle she faced without her husband since he had been in custody, including financial strain and difficulty taking care of their two children on her own.
...
Ms Justice Kennedy considered the plea for clemency and agreed with the sentencing judge that the victim “had a misplaced and wholly inappropriate sense of guilt regarding the making of her complaint to the gardaí”.
She added that, although the victim’s attitude is a factor which may be taken into consideration, “the offence is an attack on society and not simply a private wrong, and therefore the attitude of the victim is not determinative”. Regarding the judge’s approach to the plea for clemency, Ms Justice Kennedy said the court was satisfied that this was beyond reproach.
Considering the pre-mitigation sentence for the rape offence, Ms Justice Kennedy said the “intrinsic gravity” of TS’s actions “was aggravated by the very significant breach of trust, the restriction of the complainant … so that she could neither breath or scream, the forcible removal of her clothing and the pain caused to her. Moreover, she was humiliated and degraded in her own home”. Ms Justice Kennedy said there was no “scope to differentiate between marital rape and any other category of rape”, but that in marital rape “the gravity of the offence will always be aggravated by the breach of trust and betrayal of the victim which arise by virtue of the circumstances in which the offence is committed”.
Satisfied that the pre-mitigation sentence was too low, Ms Justice Kennedy said the sentencing judge did not adequately address the gravity of the offending conduct, and the sentence was a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence. This amounted to an error in principle.
If the headline sentence properly reflected the gravity of the offending conduct, Ms Justice Kennedy said the discount afforded for mitigation and the plea for clemency would not have significantly impacted the sentence so as to amount to an error in principle.
Quashing the sentence, Ms Justice Kennedy said the appropriate pre-mitigation sentence for the s.4 rape was one of 10 years’ imprisonment. This was reduced to one of seven-and-a-half years considering the mitigating factors. In this regard, Ms Kennedy emphasised that the expressions of guilt and remorse after conviction were factors with very little weight.
Analysing the reasons underlying the plea for mercy, Ms Justice Kennedy said the victim “was most affected by the impact of TS’s incarceration upon her children, her financial circumstances, her hope of reconciliation and the impact on the wider family”. However, the letter could not be viewed in isolation, and Ms Justice Kennedy considered the fact that in her victim statement just one month earlier, the victim had expressed that she was no longer scared. Ms Justice Kennedy said this was “clearly due to the fact that her husband was incarcerated”.
Nevertheless, Ms Justice Kennedy said she was conscious of the underlying reasons of the plea and suspended the final two years of the sentence.
The Court did not intervene in the sentence for sexual assault.
I also happened across this example earlier today -
Conviction for father who sexually assaulted daughter overturned
A father who was found guilty of sexually assaulting his 19-year-old daughter on Christmas morning in 2017 has had his conviction overturned on appeal.
The man's barrister, Sean Guerin SC, had argued before the Court of Appeal that the trial judge had erred in refusing to permit the defence to cross-examine the complainant in respect of the contents of a diary found in her room, in which the words "Hate Dad" were written, in order to show "pre-existing malice".
The defence contended that these words authored by the complainant herself contained evidence of ill-will towards the appellant. It was submitted that they were relevant to her potential motive in making the complaint of sexual assault and contradicted her evidence that she and her father had a good relationship.
...
In a written judgement delivered electronically on Friday, the Court of Appeal President Mr Justice George Birmingham called this an "unusual case". "We say that because the experience of the members of the Court has been that while cases involving a pattern of inter familial sexual abuse are by no means uncommon, the cases involving a single allegation without any background are rare," he said.
The judge said the Court found themselves "feeling a degree of disquiet", both as to the manner in which the issue as to the diary was dealt with and as to the treatment of corroboration in the trial judge's charge. Mr Justice Birmingham said that neither issue on its own would have been sufficient to cause the Court to have any doubts as to the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict. However, he said the combination had given rise to unease, to a degree that the Court could not confidently say that the trial was fair and satisfactory and that the verdict was safe.
Mr Justice Birmingham, sitting with Mr Justice John Edwards and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, said the court would quash the sexual assault conviction and would list the matter in the coming days to deal with any application there may be in relation to whether a retrial should be ordered.0 -
Downing Street plans rape prosecution targets for police and CPS
Exclusive: unusual intervention aims to reverse decline and bring more cases to trial
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/09/downing-street-to-set-rape-prosecution-targets-police-and-cps0 -
(US)
https://thepostmillennial.com/betsy-devos-title-ix-restored-due-processBetsy Devos restores much-needed due process to American campuses with Title IX reformsTitle IX had not been conceived with the resolution of sexual complaint cases on its radar, and many observers saw the DCL exploitation of it as illegal. But it went down well with feminist groups like the American Association of University Women (AAUW), who were delighted to see “a preponderance of the evidence,” i.e. a 50.1 per cent likelihood of guilt, replace “beyond a reasonable doubt (95 per cent certainty),” the standard in criminal court. The procedures outlined in Dear Colleague made it very difficult for an accused individual to defend himself: he could not see or present evidence, have a lawyer represent him, or confront his accuser, all routine rights in any real court.0 -
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-fines-woman-rs-25-000-for-false-rape-complaint-report-2285822Bombay High Court Fines Woman ₹ 25,000 For False Rape Complaint: Report
The woman had registered an FIR against her boyfriend at in Palghar district on March 16, alleging that he had "drugged and raped her".
The fine is equivalent to €287.0 -
University suspended black student for a year because drunk white girl kissed him: lawsuit
She told three different stories – and the last one can be falsified
Long Island University punished a black student for sexual assault despite his white accuser’s constantly changing story and several witnesses who either contradicted or couldn’t corroborate her claims, according to a lawsuit filed last week against the private university in Brookville, New York.
“John Doe” accused LIU of Title IX and Title VI violations, saying “gender bias was a motivating factor” in the “erroneous outcome” of his proceeding and racial bias explains the “differential treatment” he received compared to “Jane Roe.”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-suspended-black-student-for-a-year-because-drunk-white-girl-kissed-him-lawsuit/
I wonder will we start seeing such kangaroo court outcomes in Ireland with the push to make colleges safer.Jane had drunkenly kissed John, “an active and well-respected member of his church,” without his affirmative consent “in front of many witnesses” in a dorm room. (As a football player on LIU’s team, John had also resolved not to drink during the season.) Later that night she panicked that her public behavior could harm her “committed relationship” with another man.
The next day she filed a complaint against John, claiming that the night before he had forced her to perform oral sex on him. He also “pulled” her into another room where he held her down and continued kissing her, Jane claimed. In the final version of her story, she made a factual assertion that could be vetted: John assaulted her behind a “wall” of dressers in the room, which is furnished by LIU.0 -
Came across an Australian case yesterday where a 17yo girl falsely accused a 15yo boy of raping her in a park. He spent a year in prison before being acquitted.
As far as I could see the girl suffered no punishment for her lies. Wtf?!0 -
Advertisement
-
Jimmy Twotimes wrote: »Came across an Australian case yesterday where a 17yo girl falsely accused a 15yo boy of raping her in a park. He spent a year in prison before being acquitted.
As far as I could see the girl suffered no punishment for her lies. Wtf?!
Thats the issue I have. Women (who lie about these kinda things) have no fear as they know most likely they will go unpunished and even maintain anonymity0 -
Jimmy Twotimes wrote: »Came across an Australian case yesterday where a 17yo girl falsely accused a 15yo boy of raping her in a park. He spent a year in prison before being acquitted.
As far as I could see the girl suffered no punishment for her lies. Wtf?!
Link?0 -
-
Jimmy Twotimes wrote: »Boards won't let me post a link but try googling 'Patrick Waring rape'.
Just found an AMA he did on Reddit. A quick look and he says he was beaten regularly in prison (very quickly the prisoners found out what he 'did') and never received a penny in compensation.
You can copy/paste a link as text (same as you just typed). Boards won't stop that. You don't need to use the functions within the post toolbar.0 -
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54594388Rape case prosecutors must disregard sext messages
By June Kelly
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
I imagine with all cases, including nonsexual ones conviction probabilities are a factor. Also it is possible that sexual ones have become too politicised and that a lack of successful prosecution becomes a problem for particular individuals or agencies."I hope the myth-busting training starts with the CPS lawyers who specialise in rape and serious sexual offences. In my view they are the problem," she says. "I have seen first hand how the CPS strategy is to pull apart a case and play the 'odds' game.
"Their approach is to second guess what a jury will decide. The lawyers are fixated on conviction rates and funding, not on representing victims."
Again it seems like pressure might be put to help gain more convictions, while little or no pressure is coming in the opposite direction.The End Violence Against Women coalition and their lawyers at the Centre for Women's Justice are currently involved in legal action over rape prosecutions.
In a case due to be heard early next year, they are mounting a court challenge that will examine rape prosecution policy and practice.
Sarah Green, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: "The new guidance for rape prosecutors is welcome if it enables those who prepare cases for court to predict and reject sexist stereotypes about rape and to really consider the impact of trauma on how rape survivors may present.
And even if it doesn't result in more convictions, it could result in more people having to face charges of sexual assault, which is very stressful.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rape-victims-to-be-legally-represented-at-trial-if-their-sexual-history-is-examined-1.4392704Rape victims to be legally represented at trial if their sexual history is examined
Sweeping reforms aim to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system
In this short piece, the word "victims" is used 16 times. As was mentioned previously, this isn't a neutral term.0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rape-victims-to-be-legally-represented-at-trial-if-their-sexual-history-is-examined-1.4392704
In this short piece, the word "victims" is used 16 times. As was mentioned previously, this isn't a neutral term.
Here’s the report and the word “victim” is used throughout even though this is about the trial and pre-trial, not post-conviction.
https://assets.gov.ie/94023/bb7d391d-2198-4f94-a3bf-64fdd2538bf2.pdf
Ultimately, this means more lawyers on the State payroll and lucrative training contracts. I suppose it’s the price the Government is willing to pay. But what about the accused?
What purpose will these lawyers serve? Will they be allowed to examine witnesses? When the jury sees the “victim” has been given lawyers in addition to the prosecutors, how can they acquit?
One stated purpose of these lawyers is to “facilitate” the “victim” in “giving their best evidence" .
It is a major ethical breach for a lawyer to coach a witness about their evidence i.e. tell them what they should say in the witness box. It would seriously undermine the value of the criminal trial (and especially of cross-examination) as a process to reveal the truth or otherwise of the charges.
But of course that’s no longer the aim in sexual charges - getting the conviction rate up is the all-encompassing goal.
And what about excluding exculpatory evidence?It is acknowledged that in the aftermath of a sexual crime the collection of digital evidence such as evidence from a phone is difficult and stressful. Only where necessary and where evidence is required from the phone or other device to prove or disprove the allegations will such evidence be collected.
Mobile phone evidence is a vital tool in criminal investigations but for sexual cases the Gardai are being given a clear warning - hands off the “victims” phone unless you can show it is “necessary” and it can “prove or disprove the allegations”. Not e.g.a stream of sexting between the parties beforehand or friendly messages afterwards unless the victim says “I consented to the sexual activity we engaged in” or something to that effect, which no one ever says in a text . And all Gardai will get expensive training to rid them of any contrary notions.
Imagine if an official report into say drugs offences tried to restrict digital evidence in this way? The Sunday World would have the Minister’s head on a platter.0 -
Do you have any issue with victims of other crimes being referred to as victims?0
-
Here’s the report and the word “victim” is used throughout even though this is about the trial and pre-trial, not post-conviction.
https://assets.gov.ie/94023/bb7d391d-2198-4f94-a3bf-64fdd2538bf2.pdf
Ultimately, this means more lawyers on the State payroll and lucrative training contracts. I suppose it’s the price the Government is willing to pay. But what about the accused?
It’s already been established that the victim is the victim of a criminal offence, that’s why they are regarded as a victim. The victim is not on trial, it is the person or persons who are accused of committing a criminal offence are on trial. The accused are still entitled to their rights too.What purpose will these lawyers serve? Will they be allowed to examine witnesses? When the jury sees the “victim” has been given lawyers in addition to the prosecutors, how can they acquit?
One stated purpose of these lawyers is to “facilitate” the “victim” in “giving their best evidence" .
The victim isn’t given lawyers in addition to the prosecution, because the prosecution doesn’t represent the victim or victims, they represent the State. Victims will be entitled to separate legal representation in circumstances where the defence would try and introduce the previous sexual history of the victim into evidence, and because victims are appearing as witnesses for the State, it stands to reason that the State should pay for their legal representation.And what about excluding exculpatory evidence?
Mobile phone evidence is a vital tool in criminal investigations but for sexual cases the Gardai are being given a clear warning - hands off the “victims” phone unless you can show it is “necessary” and it can “prove or disprove the allegations”. Not e.g.a stream of sexting between the parties beforehand or friendly messages afterwards unless the victim says “I consented to the sexual activity we engaged in” or something to that effect, which no one ever says in a text . And all Gardai will get expensive training to rid them of any contrary notions.
The one paragraph where the word “victim” isn’t used, yet you still imagine it applies only to the victim and not also to the accused.Imagine if an official report into say drugs offences tried to restrict digital evidence in this way? The Sunday World would have the Minister’s head on a platter.
Graham O’ Dwyer would be able to tell you all about how digital evidence shouldn’t be permitted to be entered into evidence, no sign of the Sunday World having the Minister’s head on a platter.0 -
jimwallace197 wrote: »Oh really, so what was the sil fox case about so when there was obvious cctv evidence contradicting this witches claims? That man had his reputation destroyed and had to wait around months before being exonorated, probably nearly killing him in the process. Disgraceful, I know exactly whats happening so cut your bull****
Of course it happens. I don't think anyone is saying that there are never false accusations. There are and it's a disgrace and those people should be punished. But the fact remains that men are much more likely to be raped themselves than be falsely accused of rape.
OP - the title of the thread tells us what you think already.0 -
-
What do you base that "fact" on?
Statistics. What else could I possibly base it on?Graffiti on my local pubs loo door?
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-false-rape-allegations-20181011-story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html0 -
I usually don't take much heed of feminist opinion pieces.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the highest victims of rape (may be in the US) are men...but thats in prison. Which is also were the term "rape culture" comes from that feminists stole and somehow applied it to generally in Ireland. :rolleyes:0 -
I usually don't take much heed of feminist opinion pieces.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the highest victims of rape (may be in the US) are men...but thats in prison. Which is also were the term "rape culture" comes from that feminists stole and somehow applied it to generally in Ireland. :rolleyes:
An article doing a fact check on my claim is not a feminist opinion piece.
Wouldn't your claim lend credence to mine? Lots of men are victims of rape. That's what both you and I are saying. Many more than are accused falsely of rape. I haven't used the term rape culture so you can argue elsewhere about that particular bee in your bonnet.0 -
Unfortunately a lot of women do lie about these kind of things and in large part they do because they know they will get away with it. As many in the past have done.
Reputation destruction is one of the ways women (generally) display aggression as opposed to men who (generally) display aggression physically.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you have any issue with victims of other crimes being referred to as victims?
I have a big issue with someone being called a victim when that prejudges the guilt of another party.
In most crimes, it is clear that a crime has been committed and that the complainant is the victim.The main issue is identifying the culprit. When did you last hear of someone accused of murder, for instance, plead not guilty on the grounds that no one died?
In most rape cases before our courts, in contrast, the issue is whether any crime has been committed i.e. was the sex consensual. Calling all rape complainants victims assumes that there was a crime and in most cases there is only one possible culprit.
The same goes for any case, rare though they are, in which there the defendant claims there has been no crime e.g. if someone accused of embezzlement says that the money was given freely. It would be outrageous if the media reporting on such a case called the person alleging they were embezzled “a victim”.0 -
Statistics. What else could I possibly base it on?Graffiti on my local pubs loo door?
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-false-rape-allegations-20181011-story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html
You are pissing into the wind by stating the fact that men are more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape on this thread.
Alot see this thread as a gender war depite the fact that both men and women can be raped. A false accuser also will always be referred to as a "she" here despite there being no reason why a false accuser of rape cant be male.0 -
I have a big issue with someone being called a victim when that prejudges the guilt of another party.
In most crimes, it is clear that a crime has been committed and that the complainant is the victim.The main issue is identifying the culprit. When did you last hear of someone accused of murder, for instance, plead not guilty on the grounds that no one died?
In most rape cases before our courts, in contrast, the issue is whether any crime has been committed i.e. was the sex consensual. Calling all rape complainants victims assumes that there was a crime and in most cases there is only one possible culprit.
The same goes for any case, rare though they are, in which there the defendant claims there has been no crime e.g. if someone accused of embezzlement says that the money was given freely. It would be outrageous if the media reporting on such a case called the person alleging they were embezzled “a victim”.
But what if the victim of a crime just lied?
Now you are assuming they are a victim and that a crime has been committed, but who knows?!
Surely it's prejudicial to whomever they, and/or the state has accused?
BTW, people are accused of murder without a body being found.
You believe most rape cases to be a consent issue, where did you find those statistics? And, clearly every single person accused of rape, can claim there was consent! Every single one can get up and say they believed they had consent.
It's just an argument.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »You are pissing into the wind by stating the fact that men are more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape on this thread.
I always find it interesting that we're to believe women who claim that there are more rapes than are reported, but no similar expectation of belief is extended to males. Or similar.Alot see this thread as a gender war depite the fact that both men and women can be raped. A false accuser also will always be referred to as a "she" here despite there being no reason why a false accuser of rape cant be male.
A false accuser will be referred as "she" because that's the scenario that was introduced originally. If you want to talk about male on male rape, then, say so, and I'm sure someone will discuss it. But I've been reading this thread for a long time, and previously, the issue hadn't been raised. So... raise it (although perhaps you should have done it when there was more than 3 people posting here):rolleyes:0 -
But what if the victim of a crime just lied?
Now you are assuming they are a victim and that a crime has been committed, but who knows?!
Surely it's prejudicial to whomever they, and/or the state has accused?
I think you agree with me but have completely misunderstood my post.
It's obvious that consent is usually the issue, but google up some statistics if you want.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I always find it interesting that we're to believe women who claim that there are more rapes than are reported, but no similar expectation of belief is extended to males. Or similar.
A false accuser will be referred as "she" because that's the scenario that was introduced originally. If you want to talk about male on male rape, then, say so, and I'm sure someone will discuss it. But I've been reading this thread for a long time, and previously, the issue hadn't been raised. So... raise it (although perhaps you should have done it when there was more than 3 people posting here):rolleyes:
I
The thread is now upwards of 700 posts and predominately made up of the users and the victim is constantly refered to as she even tho the topic has moved on from the original post. I have raised the issue that rape is by no means just a man/women issue and quoted the fact a man is more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape. But it went down like a lead balloon. This thread which is on obviously a very serious subject is presumed by many to be a man/women and sets of a gender war.
Your quote above "I always find it interesting we are to believe women that there are more rapes than reported" is a perfect example. It is not just women who asert that fact, It is pretty much a known/excepted fact that more rapes occur than reported in every demographic.You did not need to word it in away that makes it into a gender war.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I always find it interesting that we're to believe women who claim that there are more rapes than are reported, but no similar expectation of belief is extended to males. Or similar.
What? Where are the instances of men not being believed when they say they have been raped? You'll find the overwhelming majority of support groups, helplines & lobbyists to reduce the instances & impact of these crimes are run by women.0 -
A woman who is raped faces psychological ruin.
A man is falsely accused faced psychological, societal and financial ruin.
I have the same sympathy (if not more) for men who are falsely accused.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »I
The thread is now upwards of 700 posts and predominately made up of the users and the victim is constantly refered to as she even tho the topic has moved on from the original post.
The OP and other posts referred to women being the victims of attacks... hence the talk about false claims. I have no memory of anyone talking about male on male rape claims, except as a minor discussion a long time ago.I have raised the issue that rape is by no means just a man/women issue and quoted the fact a man is more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape. But it went down like a lead balloon.
When? When did you propose it (unless you mean in the last few days?) The population of users who post to this thread has dropped considerably. I doubt there's more than a few posters who check or post to it anymore because the whole topic was well discussed previously. You're simply late to the party.
It's been ages since I've posted to the thread, and I just ghost it most of the time.This thread which is on obviously a very serious subject is presumed by many to be a man/women and sets of a gender war.
Nah. You're pushing the gender war line on the thread. Maybe you'd be happier on the controversy over feminism thread if you want to push that angle. (since you keep repeating gender war in your posts)Your quote above "I always find it interesting we are to believe women that there are more rapes than reported" is a perfect example. It is not just women who asert that fact, It is pretty much a known/excepted fact that more rapes occur than reported in every demographic.You did not need to word it in away that makes it into a gender war.
Social change. We've had 50 years of feminism rising within society, pushing certain claims, and this is one of those claims, irrespective of the lack of evidence to support it. People make assumptions. Just as there was the assumption in the US, that Black men were more likely to commit rapes than white men... people believed it to be true, even though they'd never seen any evidence to convince them of the fact. They simply assumed it was true. Just as you are doing. And I agree, that there are likely more claims that are not made (due to all manner of reasons), there's still little evidence to support the assumption.. just as there's little evidence to support your previous assumption.
And while I'm not a grammar nazi, could you recheck your posts (word choice) before posting, just to make them a little easier to read. Rather than me guessing your meaning.0 -
Advertisement
-
What? Where are the instances of men not being believed when they say they have been raped? You'll find the overwhelming majority of support groups, helplines & lobbyists to reduce the instances & impact of these crimes are run by women.
I think you need to reread what I wrote, because you quoted me, and then went off on an entirely different direction.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement