Belfast Rugby Players Rape Trial

[DOTA]

Anyone know enough about UK law to know how potential civil cases work in this instance?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

An unproven allegation is where no one has enough evidence to say whether something happened or not.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[adexkola]

Is it not where the prosecution doesn't achieve a conviction?

Yeah, and I should caveat that with "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is > 95% certainty.

I'm just butressing your point that the failure of the prosecution to secure a conviction doesn't mean that the accuser is lying. To determine that would require a separate trial, with evidence that the accuser purposely lied. An acquittal just leaves everyone in limbo with regards to what actually happened, by that 95% threshold.

 

[jungledrums]

No, you couldn't.

A false allegation is where nothing occurred at all, an unproven allegation is when an incident occured but there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone.

Plus, the idea false allegations exist almost exclusively within the spectrum of sexual assault, and the idea that there's millions of people ready to falsify claims of sexual assault in the court of law.

You simply cannot say with certainty that it occurred. It’s a horrible situation for all parties currently. If it’s true it didn’t occur, shame on her, but if it did occur, it is hopelessly tragic for her and others out there under similar circumstances as it seems very very difficult to convict for this crime. That’s the only conclusion you can come to, really.

 

[DOTA]

Yeah, and I should caveat that with "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is > 95% certainty.

I'm just buttressing your point that the failure of the prosecution to secure a conviction doesn't mean that the accuser is lying. To determine that would require a separate trial, with evidence that the accuser purposely lied. An acquittal just leaves everyone in limbo with regards to what actually happened, by that 95% threshold.

Where is this 95% threshold from?

Other than that, fair enough.

 

[Javi]

An unproven allegation is where no one has enough evidence to say whether something happened or not.

No. The state has to prove your guilt and not the other way around. Imagine this: adex you killed this guy three years ago. Now, prove that you didn‘t. There is no burden of proof on the accused.

And there is no difference between a false and an unproven accusation because whether the accusation is true or not depends on the proof. If it‘s not enough, then that accusation is both false and unproven. There is one possible scenario where I would agree that literally (not in the legal sense) it‘s not false but still unproven which is when the police made a mistake in protocol and evidence discovered through that and subsequently the case also is thrown out of the window. Doesn‘t seem to be the issue here.

 

[villain]

The "incident" here is rape so I don't know how you can say it definitely occurred?

Rape was only one of the charges, no?

You simply cannot say with certainty that it occurred. It’s a horrible situation for all parties currently. If it’s true it didn’t occur, shame on her, but if it did occur, it is hopelessly tragic for her and others out there under similar circumstances as it seems very very difficult to convict for this crime. That’s the only conclusion you can come to, really.

An incident did occur. Whether it was rape, sexual misconduct or whatever is what the prosecution failed to prove.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Rape was only one of the charges, no?

Sure. But you get my point. You seem to be starting from the premise that something illegal definitely happened but they were unable to prove it. In the absence of a success prosecution we have to assume that nothing illegal happened.

An incident did occur. Whether it was rape, sexual misconduct or whatever is what the prosecution failed to prove.

By “whatever” I assume you mean consensual sex?

 

[Adisa]

Didn't follow the case but it seems some are asking for the burden of proof to be so low that a word should be enough for a conviction.
Also seen some in Twitter suggest bleeding is evidence of rape.
Has that always been the case?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

By “whatever” I assume you mean consensual sex?

Hardly consensual sex. I agree that you have to presume the innocence of a crime when the law falls that way but surely common sense also dictates that no woman would be adamant she had been raped or sexually assaulted right after the incident took place for no reason.

I'd assume that something happened that wasn't consensual and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Not the same as consensual sex though.

 

[villain]

Sure. But you get my point. You seem to be starting from the premise that something illegal definitely happened but they were unable to prove it. In the absence of a success prosecution we have to assume that nothing illegal happened.



By “whatever” I assume you mean consensual sex?

I'm not starting from any premise. By law, what they've been accused of - they have been found innocent, meaning that it is unproven for them to be rapists (and therefore innocent)

A false allegation is one that didn't occur at all, and there is no evidence of ever happening.

It isn't one or the other.

 

[adexkola]

Where is this 95% threshold from?

Other than that, fair enough.

I think it's just a comparison to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard which is > 50%. The actual number could be 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.99%... just high enough to indicate that any doubt is enough to exonerate the defendant.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

You simply cannot say with certainty that it occurred. It’s a horrible situation for all parties currently. If it’s true it didn’t occur, shame on her, but if it did occur, it is hopelessly tragic for her and others out there under similar circumstances as it seems very very difficult to convict for this crime. That’s the only conclusion you can come to, really.

Exactly this.

It was omnipresent in the news so everyone has made their own conclusions one way or the other. I'm of the opinion that something (not consensual) happened, purely because there wouldn't have been the reaction there was if nothing happened. The grey area is exactly what happened and how you prove that satisfactorily in a court of law.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hardly consensual sex. I agree that you have to presume the innocence of a crime when the law falls that way but surely common sense also dictates that no woman would be adamant she had been raped or sexually assaulted right after the incident took place for no reason.

I'd assume that something happened that wasn't consensual and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Not the same as consensual sex though.

There are plenty of cases where exactly that has happened. As for “no reason”, there are lots of reasons that someone who feels guilty/angry/ashamed after a consensual one night stand turns sour might make an accusation about a sexual assault that never happened.

That said, my instinct is to believe the girl. These guys have a track record of being boorish pricks so it’s not a massive leap to imagine them being reckless re consent on a drunken night out.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

Looking through this piece of evidence is key:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...or-both-prosecution-and-defence-36752710.html

The witness claimed the alleged victim was not in distress, the men invited the witness to join in, which she declined to. The witness also contradicts the alleged victim never mentioned this women walking in her testimony BUT also contradicts Paddy Jackson

also key:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43244186

Inconsistancies in her version of events between what she told the doctor and what she told the police.

There's other reasons that are more circumstancial, like other people in the house who didn't hear any signs of distress and the jury visited the house to 'hear how sound travels in the house'. Ofcourse a rape victim could be quiet.

She may or may not have been raped but both of these pieces of evidence give the jury enough doubt not to convict

The issue is the way rape is currently tried.

It's actually around 50% at trial which is in line with other crimes. Rape also has a lesser burden of proof than other crimes. The way it is currently tried is with far more protection for the alleged victim than in the past.

Conviction rates are ridiculously low when it comes to these things, and prior to conviction the amount of people who come forward is even lower because of the way these incidents are handled.

Right but the problem is some women do lie about rape and everyone is due a fair trial. This man did 4 years before his rape conviction was overturned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

 

[Rooney24]

Perhaps the way forward in such cases, espec

Not 'that argument' - that legal definition. You are found not guilty you are not found innocent. Your accuser is not found guilty via you not being proven so.

I can only hope she is and stays anonymous as it is rarely the case from what I've seen in high profile rape trials.

Why shouldnt it have been the same for them though? I mean why do they have to be publicly named prior to and throughout the trial? Shouldnt they be allowed to remain anonymous prior to and during the trial? Its probably the way forward in these cases. Or conversely both parties get named.

If they are found guilty then yeah by all means name them.

You only have to look at Twitter or Facebook at the moment to see the thousands that are convinced of their guilt when they could be absolutely entirely innocent of this simply because one parties anonymity is protected and the others isnt. Something wrong with that approach for me.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

There are plenty of cases where exactly that has happened.

As for “no reason”, there are lots of reasons that someone who feels guilty/angry/ashamed after a consensual one night stand turns sour might accuse someone of a sexual assault that never happened.

True.

It's a lose/lose really. The woman will never get justice if she was actually assaulted/raped, the men will never have this disappear even if they didn't do anything that wasn't consensual.

 

[Minimalist]

No idea what happened obviously but the case was too complicated to declare them guilty.

It's horrible for the girl if she's the one telling the truth but I can't see how you can convict them. They sound like arseholes and they probably do treat women like shit but it could easily be a case of regrets for her, rather than rape.

I can understand why this would put off genuine rape victims of coming forward though.

 

[villain]

Looking through this piece of evidence is key:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...or-both-prosecution-and-defence-36752710.html

The witness claimed the alleged victim was not in distress, the men invited the witness to join in, which she declined to. The witness also contradicts the alleged victim never mentioned this women walking in her testimony BUT also contradicts Paddy Jackson

also key:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43244186

Inconsistancies in her version of events between what she told the doctor and what she told the police.

There's other reasons that are more circumstancial, like other people in the house who didn't hear any signs of distress and the jury visited the house to 'hear how sound travels in the house'. Ofcourse a rape victim could be quiet.

She may or may not have been raped but both of these pieces of evidence give the jury enough doubt not to convict



It's actually around 50% at trial which is in line with other crimes. Rape also has a lesser burden of proof than other crimes. The way it is currently tried is with far more protection for the alleged victim than in the past.



Right but the problem is some women do lie about rape and everyone is due a fair trial. This man did 4 years before his rape conviction was overturned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

Lots of witnesses made multiple statements, including the taxi driver recalling her being in distress and crying with blood on her. No one witness statement weighs heavier than another.

Also the 50% rate is for reportable crimes at trial. The rate I was referring to is the attrition rate, which is the amount of convictions resulting from reports of a crime, and is not routinely calculated for any crime other than rape. I.e sexual assault, misconduct, harassment etc.
So someone is able to sexually harass, assault and rape you and the conviction rate for that is above 50%, but if someone rapes you the conviction rate is roughly 11%. Prosecutors usually place more weight on rape because there is more likely to be evidence for this, but that can be the downfall of their stance when it comes to trial (as it was in this case)
All of this makes it difficult to find the "true" figures if you will - but it only furthers the idea that the way these cases are carried out should be thoroughly reviewed.

Yes some women do lie about rape. But the idea that this is commonplace, is simply incorrect:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ution-women-lying-collapse-liam-allan-victims

The idea of women "crying rape" is peddled far more often than to be true, and falls within the realm of rape culture more often than not.

 

[SteveTheRed]

No, you couldn't.

A false allegation is where nothing occurred at all, an unproven allegation is when an incident occured but there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone.

Plus, the idea false allegations exist almost exclusively within the spectrum of sexual assault, and the idea that there's millions of people ready to falsify claims of sexual assault in the court of law.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

 

[adexkola]

I've always said that the same anonymity granted to plantiffs in a rape case should be granted to the defendant.

 

[villain]

I've always said that the same anonymity granted to plantiffs in a rape case should be granted to the defendant.

Couldn't agree with this more.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I've always said that the same anonymity granted to plantiffs in a rape case should be granted to the defendant.

Couldn't agree with this more.

Does anyone have any idea why this isn't the case?

 

[Paxi]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[villain]

Does anyone have any idea why this isn't the case?

It can depend case by case and depending on the charge.

I believe in cases like this (could be wrong, it's been almost 10 years since I did criminal law), the defendants aren't usually given anonymity in case it encourages more victims to come out. You can blame Thatcher for that under The CJA 1988. The idea was that if someone is a serial rapist or pedophile - removing their anonymity would encourage any other potential victims to come forward, and it warns the public in case the defendant is in public whilst awaiting trial.

 

[poleglass red]

The anonymity in this case would probably be hard to keep due to the high profile nature of the defendants, but to see their names and full address listed everyday during the trial on the local news papers facebook was hard to take. That's one area were anonymity would have helped. Belfast is a small place, it's well known, everyone and I mean everyone that was part of this trial's name is known locally. I also thought some of the daily reporting was much too intrusive, I certainly didn't need to know a lot of that stuff. I certainly hope that the public nature of this case wouldn't deter anybody from pursuing a case against a well know public person in the future, but I fear it might.....

 

[adexkola]

Does anyone have any idea why this isn't the case?

Some people argue that it makes proceedings secret which is bad. Doesn't make sense, considering that cases involving juveniles are sealed.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I've got a son and a daughter and hate the thought of either of them ever getting involved in something like this. I do wonder if one positive that might come out of the highly public nature of this trial is that it will make young men much more conscious about being 100% certain about consent and generally behaving more respectfully towards the opposite sex. In case they also end up in the stand having to hear their misogynist whatsapp messages being shared with the nation.

On a side note, I find the whole letting your friends watch while you're having sex thing absolutely fecking bizarre. Not that it seems to have been a factor in the outcome of this case but fecking hell, lads, what's the appeal?!?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Also, this is interesting. Re the difference between the way a case like this would have been handled in the Republic vs Northern Ireland.

Differences between court systems

We would also like to draw attention to differences between the court system in Ireland and in Northern Ireland. In Ireland, the public are excluded from rape trials. This would have prevented the extra pressure caused by packed public gallery and attendance of the defendant’s team mates, Irish rugby captain Rory Best and Ian Henderson.

In our system too, neither the complainant nor the accused is named until the trial is over. Sometimes those involved are not named even after a person is convicted. While there are some difficulties with our system, this case shows that it is a more humane system as the naming of high-profile defendants was a significant factor in the interest of the press and public in this case.

Taken from a statement by the DRCC.

 

[Adisa]

On another note, how difficult have keyboard warriors made a juror's job be?
A fair trial is almost impossible these days.
I wouldn't be a juror in a case like this even if someone paid me.

 

[Paxi]

On another note, how difficult have keyboard warriors made a juror's job be?
A fair trial is almost impossible these days.
I wouldn't be a juror in a case like this even if someone paid me.

I'm not sure one has a choice if one is picked for final jury then that's that?

 

[Massive Spanner]

it's a strange one, but I did always suspect this would be the outcome. The four of them quite clearly treated the girl like shit and probably treat plenty of girls like shit (as we've seen many rich young sports-stars do in the past and likely will do in the future) but there was never really any proof, certainly beyond any reasonable doubt, that it wasn't consensual on her behalf and that she didn't know what she was doing either. I have utmost sympathy for the girl, it was a really brave thing to do, but the right verdict was likely delivered.

Still, the idea that is floating around social media that they just got off scot-free is nonsense, they'll carry this with them for the rest of their lives no doubt, and I do hope it will ultimately encourage young Irish men to be more careful and treat women better, but that's wishful thinking.

 

[sullydnl]

I've got a son and a daughter and hate the thought of either of them ever getting involved in something like this. I do wonder if one positive that might come out of the highly public nature of this trial is that it will make young men much more conscious about being 100% certain about consent and generally behaving more respectfully towards the opposite sex. In case they also end up in the stand having to hear their misogynist whatsapp messages being shared with the nation.

On a side note, I find the whole letting your friends watch while you're having sex thing absolutely fecking bizarre. Not that it seems to have been a factor in the outcome of this case but fecking hell, lads, what's the appeal?!?

It's really, really weird. At no point after sleeping with someone have I ever thought "that would have been so much better if one of my friends had been standing there watching me the whole time". That would end friendships.

You'd think famous, wealthy sports stars who are interested in having a threesome would have the self-confidence to a least try for two girls first rather than immediately letting another lad join in instead. Yet it seems to be weirdly common among footballers and rugby players, as if exposure to the concept of team bonding has addled their brains.

 

[Paxi]

On a side note, I find the whole letting your friends watch while you're having sex thing absolutely fecking bizarre. Not that it seems to have been a factor in the outcome of this case but fecking hell, lads, what's the appeal?!?

It's really, really weird. At no point after sleeping with someone have I ever thought "that would have been so much better if one of my friends had been standing there watching me the whole time". That would end friendships.

You'd think famous, wealthy sports stars who are interested in having a threesome would have the self-confidence to a least try for two girls first rather than immediately letting another lad join in instead. Yet it seems to be weirdly common among footballers and rugby players, as if exposure to the concept of team bonding has addled their brains.

I remembered my friend and I shared a room in our early 20's. He brought some girl back and started having sex with her. All I could do was laugh hysterically. I'm not sure why I found the whole thing hilarious but even they at one point they started laughing. It was all bit bizzare to be honest. Also at no point did I want to like join in or anything.

Another strange thing was that he was banging his big brother's girlfriend's younger sister who were also in the house. Everyone was laughing about it the next day. Ah well some people are just not that fussed I guess.

 

[Dave89]

Hardly consensual sex. I agree that you have to presume the innocence of a crime when the law falls that way but surely common sense also dictates that no woman would be adamant she had been raped or sexually assaulted right after the incident took place for no reason.

I'd assume that something happened that wasn't consensual and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Not the same as consensual sex though.

Be careful accusing innocent men of rape. I like the caf too much to see it caught up in a libel case.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Be careful accusing innocent men of rape. I like the caf too much to see it caught up in a libel case.

Be careful about misquoting me. I didn't accuse anyone of anything and in fact discuss the indeterminate nature of the situation within that post (as well as those which follow).

 

[Dave89]

Be careful about misquoting me. I didn't accuse anyone of anything and in fact discuss the indeterminate nature of the situation within that post (as well as those which follow).

Your implications are clear.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Your implications are clear.

To you. Which is ironic because the entire take home point of this case is subjectivity, as one of the accused men noted in his statement.

 

[Dave89]

To you. Which is ironic because the entire take home point of this case is subjectivity, as one of the accused men noted in his statement.

Three times in one post you claimed it wasn't consensual. The very thing the jury did not find. I'm not a lawyer, there could be a subtle difference I don't get, but as a layperson i wouldn't take the chance making those statements.

 

[Tincanalley]

Three times in one post you claimed it wasn't consensual. The very thing the jury did not find. I'm not a lawyer, there could be a subtle difference I don't get, but as a layperson i wouldn't take the chance making those statements.

Spot on. People do need to be circumspect with that kind of allegation.